For using a show/hide box that doesn't start closed. And the spacing is screwed over on FF. But oh well, it's not my talk page :P Oh, and he has red links in his archives box. Wich, without the red links, is really neat ^^ Banbanbanbanana. EDIT: And Unfavored/Ban didn't show up. /fail. Fixed it as of 27th Feb. 2008 --- -- (s)talkpage 16:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that truthfully Ereanor is being childish and slightly trolling me =| —Warw/Wick 20:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's end it, just answer me this: Do you honestly think your wiki won't trigger a community split before it's due time (i.e. when GW2W turns evil)? Would you bet on your answer?reanor 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say no, I could bet that RT | Talk 20:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a noticable split, no. And yes, I would. Now drop it, Ereanor. —Warw/Wick 20:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
GW2W: "I do contribute to GWW, so I wouldnt really say much against them..". so there --- -- (s)talkpage 21:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I said that? And I don't contribute much. I was saying that to plactate everyone or whatever. :P. I dislike their way of dealing anything, and their interprutation of policies and such. —Warw/Wick 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, read GW:YAV. Is any part of that policy unclear? You know about said policy, yet your comments and your actions show that you simply choose to disregard it. That's not okay. Aside from it being dumb (how often do you ignore the law and just steal stuff or shoot people?), it hurts the wiki and fellow contributors. If I see you blatantly ignoring YAV in the future, you will be blocked.
I know I've said this before, but you're a really visible editor. Judging from recentchanges, you and maui are the most active spam magnets on pretty much the entire wiki. The amount of spam you've received is pretty ridiculous (37 archives, most of which don't even span the length of a week?), but in order to preserve a working archive section, you need to organize it more carefully. Each individual archive has a rate-a-user template at the top, taking up a good three or four screens. Outside of that, there's no way to tell which archives are from when; because you archive so often (and you move your entire talk page every time), you should make the contents of each archive a little more clear. If you plan to keep a high level of traffic to your talk page, you might want to pull a Gaile; each general topic is a base-level archive, each with subpages separated by time. You could do a similar thing, you'd just have to work out what topic names you're most comfortable with. Remember, the point of an archive is to be navigable; currently, yours aren't.
Lastly... for all the spam your talk page receives, you do amazingly little for the betterment of the wiki. The userspace exists for people to learn a little about one another while documenting the game, not as a full-time occupation. It should be something to keep you busy/entertained for short periods between wiki projects, not something to do instead of actually playing the game. Myspace/facebook/livejournal/xanga all exist for that. Instant messangers exist for that. If you really like a bunch of the users on this wiki, add them to MSN messenger and you can chat all you want about whatever you want; spam to your heart's content. When you get to the wiki, however, you need to be a little more focused on your task here; documenting the game. -Auroñ 08:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S.; nobody cares when you go to bed. Save yourself some time and don't bother posting new sections every time you do. -Auroñ 08:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Fyi, Auron, I dont care. As far as I care, you're just that guy who thinks we're a bunch of immature brats. So yeah, go away. Any more crap on my talkpage is going to get removed. You say I'm not a visible editor- I only have 2,400~ user talk edits- RT has 3000, and only 600 more total contribs than me. About 12 of those archives have either been RT, Fire, Bored, or my brother spamming 1 post. I've been helping around here for ages, and I do a multitude of new things. Instead of just consistantly going towards me, preach that to everyone else- I'm no worse than anyone else afaik. If the reason you're "attacking" me is because of the GW2, Dont. Just go away. I'm not going to respond to any more crap about GW2. It'll either be removed or ignored. Kthx. —Warw/Wick 09:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Auron, I must re-point out that YAV is not a "Obey the majority" policy. That said, archiving a talkpage while the topic is still going on is a problem, it just has NOTHING to do with YAV. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I Archived it in the hopes of killing the discussion, and I always archive before 40kb, because it makes my computer lagg. —Warw/Wick 09:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, despite what I said above, I agree on Auron's sentiments pretty much 90% (minus any association with violation of YAV, and some other stuff). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the point, Warwick, is that you should not attempt to "kill" active discussions. 09:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussions that arn't going anywhere (last archive) should be killed.. Perhaps I should take Zulus advice.. —Warw/Wick 09:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It's really not your call whether a discussion is "going anywhere." 09:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If its on my talk page it is. Said previous archive was imo rapidly once again degenerating into a flame war. It stopped when I archived it- you can't say it didnt work. —Warw/Wick 09:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW War, re-read Auron's words. He said you are a really visible editor. You mis-read it to mean the opposite. It's because of you being a visible editor, that raises the issue to a higher level. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
He said I'm a visible editor? I didn't see that. —Warw/Wick 09:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "I know I've said this before, but you're a really visible editor." 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What is a visible editor? —Warw/Wick 09:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The opposite of an invisible editor, obviously. 09:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
...smartass... Whats an invisible editor? And if you want, I'll start soley contributing negatively. Then you can see the difference, if you want? —Warw/Wick 09:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In all seriousness, Auron presumably meant that you make frequent edits and are well-known around the wiki. 09:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, its highly unlikely he would have decided to compliment me. —Warw/Wick 09:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not a compliment. 09:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Then what does it mean, Failix? -_- —Warw/Wick 10:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you think it means? I could have said "You often make valuable contributions and are very popular" or I could have said "You spam and no one likes you." That would have been a compliment and an insult, respectively. What he said was neutral. A statement of fact. 10:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It means the consequences of your actions have relatively greater impact on the wiki (because it is noticed by and affects more people). Rhetorically Auron probably wanted you to feel a greater sense of responsibility (by the awareness of your impact) and listen to his suggestions with that in mind. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 10:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sadly the effect didn't work since I only just found out what he means. —Warw/Wick 10:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I still encourage you to re-read his first paragraph with that knowledge in mind. It might not change your mind, but I'd like you to re-read his message under the correct premise. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 10:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
it doesn't matter, 'cause you are all maggots >:( Yikey∞ 10:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yikey: I'll take that as a permission to bite you. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 10:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It wont, since we have an animosity between us. I'll reread it after this mish though. —Warw/Wick 10:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Having you leaving this community won't solve problems, and it'd make problems harder to resolve. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 12:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No no, why should I be in a community where virtually everyone dislikes me? If anyone truly thinks that me leaving will make it better, please vote yes. —Warw/Wick 12:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that ppl who truly think your leaving would make it better should vote yes. I just happen to think that you leaving won't make it better. But then, I don't usually comment on RFAs, and I don't feel like taking this poll either. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Very diplomatic. —Warw/Wick 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, if you find that you cannot stay in this community (due to a poll), then the challenge of building guildwars2.wikia into a sanctuary against the downfall of GW2W might become harder, as those whom you want to welcome may include many whom you feel you cannot co-exist with. On the other hand, if you can stay despite the issues between various community members, then there's more chance of you and the others to better learn how to deal with each other (in a constructive manner), which would help with your vision for guildwars2.wikia. Assuming I understood your vision for it correctly (please do point out if my understanding is in error). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 12:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Make your own mind up. Its your account, your decision. Lord of all tyria 12:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If the community wants me to leave, ill leave. —Warw/Wick 12:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What if the majority of the community don't mind you staying, to the point of not voting at all? You are really only collecting the desires of the vocal minority of the community. -User:PanSola (talk to the )
Polls, like votes, don't solve anything; and a wiki is not a democracy. Famous words from every smart leader from Tanaric on down. I'll be blunt when I say this is an unnecessary appeal to sympathy for, as LoaT says, is a very personal decision. You're just frustrated right now. "The emotions you feel while posting are reflected in that post"; it will pass if you just wait a bit and come back with a clearer mind.
That being said, I am against you leaving, as I have stated on my talkpage. (T/C) 12:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No poll, then. Bah, im in a bad mood, bah everything. —Warw/Wick 12:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ugh drama....-- 13:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(Reset indent) As a GuildWikian, I don't want you to leave either. And on a personal note: remember you can't run foerever. EDIT: lol, that sounded threatening, I meant it as a piece of life-wise-advise.reanor 16:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Z0mg ereanor! NPA!!!!!!!!!! banbanbanbanbanbanbanbanbanana. Yes, I can run forever. At least till I run out of breath.. which I wont, cause this iz teh interwebz —Warw/Wick 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Original exception: exception 'DBQueryError' with message 'A database error has occurred
Query: SELECT page_id,page_namespace,page_title,page_restrictions,page_counter,page_is_redirect,page_is_new,page_random,page_touched,page_latest,page_len FROM `page` WHERE page_namespace = '0' AND page_title = 'Main_Page' LIMIT 1
Error: 1033 Incorrect information in file: './defiant_wikidb/page.frm' (localhost)
' in /home/defiant/public_html/wiki/includes/Database.php:824
Exception caught inside exception handler: exception 'DBUnexpectedError' with message 'Error in fetchObject(): Incorrect information in file: './defiant_wikidb/page.frm' (localhost)' in /home/defiant/public_html/wiki/includes/Database.php:953
Still trying to figure it out. here is the source. The problem keeps occuring, and I want to try to fix it. —Warw/Wick 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like an error in your SQL statement. If you have access to the underlying database, I'd go ahead and manually run that query (SELECT page_id,page_namespace,page_title,page_restrictions,page_counter,page_is_redirect,page_is_new,page_random,page_touched,page_latest,page_len FROM `page` WHERE page_namespace = '0' AND page_title = 'Main_Page' LIMIT 1) and see if it returns any records. JonTheMon 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Fyi its not my site, though :P. Just trying to help Jio. —Warw/Wick 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. That's definitely not a statement error. It looks as if the database file is corrupted (in this case the page.frm). See this page on how to repair corrupted databases; A backup is very helpful here. Poke 16:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And arguing with what you say (I hope I don't sound too frontforward) I am copying this so I can have a record of it on my archives.
Telling other users that you will selectively ignore their comments without considering their legitimacy is troublesome.
Saying that you don't care about copyright laws (in not so many words) is not encouraging.
"If you don't like it, ignore it" is not a pragmatic response to complaints against one's conduct.
I know I'm not popular around here anymore.
I said that I will selectively ignore them if they continued with the flaming/trolling/going-nowhere-argument. If I get pulled into an argument, I won't give up until I'm totally beaten or I've won.
I didn't say I didn't care about copyright laws! Where did I say that? I said that due to the copyright laws I could copy anything GW2W had, but I wouldn't. I never said ANYTHING about not caring about copyright laws
I don't have a choice what happens to GW2. What I'd meant when I said that was "If you don't like the idea of this new wiki, just ignore the damned thing. I don't care at all if you're going to troll me about this". I didn't say that in regards to anything about my conduct. There was somthing rapidly degenerating into a flamefest going on about the new wikia. What has it got to do with my conduct?
I'm beginning to think that Zulu was right when he said that you; and almost all of the community; have actually disliked me for a very long time. I know that there are not very many people who actually do like me around here. Perhaps only those few. Meh, prove me wrong if you want. —Warw/Wick 09:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, but you asked for it.
"the flaming/trolling/going-nowhere-argument" to you is the perfectly valid concerns of other users, and it is not okay to simply ignore that. If I thought in that vein I would simply delete this post of yours since I consider it trolling. (I really don't, but you understand my drift.) Since neither side can claim to be in the absolute right or wrong, you have to suck it up and listen to each other and compromise. (Or give up, though no one is willing to do that here.)
You implied that you didn't care about copyright laws when you repeatedly said "nothing would stop me from copying GW2W", "I basically want to have a 'just in case' copy", "bah >.>" in response to Pan telling you why it was not going to work that way, etc. You can get technical on me and challenge that it's only my own personal distortion of what you said, that you were only joking, blabla. But inferring from the responses of others, I am not alone in my assessment.
People got very, very upset with what you did, and you don't seem to realize why or understand the implications. In all likelihood, as you yourself admit, the whole issue will blow over and the GW2 (or whatever you want to callo it) will be a flop. After all, what are the odds? You know it was a half-hearted joke, you are surprised Wikia accepted it, you didn't quite expect this. I understand that. What I don't understand is your lack of empathy (or even just sympathy) with what many of the others in what you call "a flamefest" were expressing. Anger. Outrage. Indignation. Betrayal. These are not trivial issues, and to dismiss it all as simply "trolling" or "flaming" is just begging to label yourself as ignorant or incompetent. (No, that's not an NPA, since it is generally directed at anyone in a similar situation.) When people get this upset over "just a new wikia", that should tell you that you've gone and done something far bigger than you imagined.
Everyone knows that it will be a failure or at the very best, a second fiddle unless something catastrophic happens to GW2W. Serious competition and harm to GW2W is not what they are worried about. What is problematic is the splitting of the community, the use of the GuildWiki name, and the basic symbolism of the act.
When the Builds section split, we got a fork: PvX Wiki. This split off many members of the community. When GWW was first formed, many frustrated users left. This split off (or rather, nearly halved) the community, with many of our best administrators moving too. When Wikia bought us, yet again the idea of a fork was aired. But this time, with so few people actually left, we finally had to call it quits and bear down. Further splitting of the community would just be suicidal; you know how precarious a situation the wiki is in from day to day, despite appearances. Considering people who left because of Wikia, it is in fact amazing that we still run at all and manage to get some of the business done. If the community had to go through another major split...that would truly kill GuildWiki, and even then the new offshoot wouldn't have enough support and it would probably die too. It's just a lose-lose situation.
The second major issue that people had was that you called the site Guildwiki 2 or such. Using the GuildWiki name implies support from GuildWiki, both at the official level and among the community. But neither case is true. Therefore, the same way that we felt betrayed by Gravewit "selling out" our good name to Wikia, this felt like you capitalizing on our name for something that most of us did not want and did not approve of. On a personal level, it was a betrayal of trust. On a policy level, you can bring allusions to GW:YAV, which I will not reiterate as Pan explained it very well. (It's bad but not a real breach.) And on a community level, it was overstepping the bounds of good taste, if not authority. The creation of a whole new wiki for GW2 is something that the community at large ought to approve of and take part in. Yet you "went rogue" and did it anyway, when most people are still opposed to it. There is nothing that specifically prohibits you; nonetheless, you broke the informal understanding that nothing of this sort would be done without some form of general agreement. We just don't do things like that on the Wiki.
Lastly, regardless of the actual outcomes of Guildwiki2, GW2, and GW2W...it's a symbolic measure when you create a new wiki that is supposedly a descendant from here. It carries implications and assumptions that people may or may not agree to. In this case many do not. Not only is it legally impossible for GuildWiki 2 to copy stuff from GuildWiki (different licensing), the two wikis would not even be connected by anything other than maybe some userbase transfer. Without even a real bloodlink, the whole thing becomes a farce. And that upsets people. If nothing else, GuildWikians have pride, and it matters to them just as much as it does to you. It hurt me - it hurt us - to see not just a fellow GuildWiki member do this un-Wiki like activity, but to use the GuildWiki name which stands for so much (so very diminishing much). You just can't seem to grasp that, and that is why we fail to understand you and your motives.
Oh and by the way, your conduct is not above reproach either; regardless of the situation, regardless if "everyone" is against you, I certainly don't see you taking the high moral ground in your responses. You've come close to many policies...YAV, NPA, AGF, among others...but never quite broken them. Rules can be bent before they can be broken, but I have to say that you are really starting to live dangerously. I say this not as a threat but as a fact: I do not know a single other user who causes as much controversy as you, who gets into as many "flamefests", or who attracts so much opposition and antagonism. Every week it's something new with you, and frankly I'm tired of it...not because of any personal feelings I have towards or against you (do not turn this into a personal issue as you so often do - my personal feelings are irrelevant to my duties), but because of the sheer volume of spam, wikidrama, and general malaise that this causes. It's not all your fault either, and that's why I feel guilty saying these things: there are some users out there who do treat you unfairly, who seem to hold an actual grudge against you. Basically, consider what Auron once told you...you are a highly visible editor, because of your personality and your actions. Attention naturally gravitates towards you. You could employ this positively...for example, leading a campaign to better the wiki...but more often than not I see it wasted on talkpages and fights. Not to mention that you spend more effort into your elaborate userpage layout than almost all the rest of us. None of these things are inherently bad and they are all natural (we all do them!), but because of that amplification, things get a bit out of hand.
...Listen. I'll say this straight to your face. I don't like you very much, and I haven't even since it was the "other" Warwick contributing. Yeah, I put up with you because we are like that at GuildWiki. You never directly caused problems, or explicitly broke policy, or otherwise did things that merited action. You were one of the general, fun loving editors who spent a lot of time doing silly but harmless things (usually). It honestly was not a very far stretch when you once claimed on an RfA, "I have no negative contributions". This is essentially true, and if I AGF, then it remains true to this day. Contrary to what some others may think...I still believe that you have never intentionally set out to harm the wiki in any way, including the present case. At worst you failed to look before you leapt. Badly.
Regardless of all this, though. I need you to understand that even if I like or dislike you, that ultimately means nothing on the Wiki. I try as much as I can to be impartial and objective. I act on the interests of the larger community and do what I can to protect those interests. My power really does come from the users collectively; it's not an insider's club of me and the sysops (I hardly know more than one or two personally), it's certainly not a dictatorship, and even if I truly despised you, the policies and unspoken rules we have here wouldn't let me permaban you or anything silly like that. (And it would be political suicide.) Yes, the administration here uses discretion. No, that doesn't lead to political favors, corruption, and singling out. I - we - are not trying to make you into an outsider or a martyr. That's partially your own dramatization of the situation and partly the lack of other users checking their responses...which I have rather limited control over. I can't be the police for everything here.
Ultimately, whether or not I personally like or dislike you does not change how I respond to you. I will challenge your actions, conduct, and interpretation of policy any day - and base what I say not by who you are but by what you do. I don't know the real May, so who am I to judge your actions in light of whatever Internet persona you have created? When I agree with someone, it's not because I like them personally. When I disagree with someone, it's not because I hold a grudge against them. I just think they are right or wrong, and that's that. Mixing personal vendettas into wiki affairs is a great recipe for disaster, and I think you can understand that it would be impossible for me to do my job if I took the Wiki so personally. I have to try as much as possible to not be inflenced by my emotions, else I risk losing fairness, equal justice, and objectivity which I need every day. (Please note that although I would like to, it would be wrong of me to speak for other users on this subject; you'll have to settle with them individually, since I don't honestly know how many feel as I do.)
I don't want to lose you as a part of the community or as a contributor. To paraphrase some of the other stuff I said to Zulu about you, I think you have many useful and valuable skills that GuildWiki could definitely benefit from. You know how to work with .css, .js, MediaWiki code, a smattering of HTML or similar (since you have your own custom browser or such), and you know a lot about formatting and appearance. You also have a bit of experience, sometimes more than other current admins. And though they are less, I know you do have some truly meaningful contributions too. So please...consider what others have said, and what I have said here. I know you think you've been over the same arguments again and again, but with so many different users raising the same sorts of issues...No one wants to make enemies on a wiki, and I sincerely hope that you understand and don't think of this as a bitter rivalry or a "no one likes me, so I don't care" situation. For everyone, there are times in life where you have to work with people you do not necessarily like, in order to achieve a common goal. This is the same thing. If you truly care about furthering GuildWiki - and I really hope I am not mistaken in my belief that you are - then let's put aside our personal feuds and get to work. Let others think what they will...I, you, we, can deal with them later. For now we have a wiki to maintain. (And hopefully save.) (T/C) 11:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I was just pointing out that he would need to provide proper attribution. I thought I was also clear that it is perfectly ok for Warwick to copy from GW2W to GW2 (if proper attribution is given). Therefore when I read Warwick's statement that nothing could stop her from copying from GW2W, I did not regard that as ignoring/disrespecting copyright. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 11:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Enjoyed that post Entropy, you summed the argument up well. RT | Talk 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well thats a picnic for me to read. Forgive the cluttered layout. I'm bad at organising. I'll spent a while reading it then I'll post back to you. My custom browser took some of the AOL files, but I admit now that FF works much, much better. So basically, I use FF now. I'm not sure what you're saying when you said that- I never said that I was, nor did I say that nothing could stop me. I said that the copyright wouldn't stop me. I said that GW2, is GW2W isnt like GWW, will probably end up being a data reserve. I get the feeling that theres a slight distortion of my words going on, or such. The "Bah >.>" was intended as a sort of joke towards Pan, because I don't have much understanding myself for the copyrights and such. As far as I knew, It was all public domain >_>
I usually do that. I can get away with anything because specifically I didn't break any policies. Its a trait of mine. I read through everything and find the loopholes. Its effective, and works. And GuildWiki goes by the spirit of the policies, so that shouldn't work here. There are pleanty of loopholes. I plan to fix that sooner or later.
"Attention gravitates to me". Well, only if you say so. As far as I've seen, the only attention that I gain is negative. People from all sides warning me, attacking me, trolling me, spamming me. Sure, I get the occasional good attention, but its not very much. No, I'm not the heart of the issue, Its certain people who are trying to antagonise me that are. Or perhaps they're not trying to antagonise me, they're just saying somthing that will end up with me being antagoniesd.
I would never attempt to hurt somthing that I contribute to. I would never attempt to hurt somthing at all. I never look before I leap. Once again, another trait of mine. GuildWiki is supposed to be about the good things. Yeah sure, I screwed up- What of it. You don't have to constantly go on at me about it. I don't take the moral high ground, even when somone is against me, because the moral high ground is just some crap that people think about. No-one is truly more right than anyone else, its just different opinions.
So you're tired of it. The attention that I gain. Well, even without me, It'd go on. I'm just somone who gets antagonised easily by those who are doing so. I don't tend to get into very many flamefests. The amount of times that I'm actually on the wiki when the flamefests are happening is scarce. See here - I wasn't on at all for all of that. If you're so tired of it, fine, if you want, I'll just leave the wiki. Actually, yes, I think I'm going to take a poll about that.
Yeah, thanks for your feedback its really nice to know the "runner" of the wiki dislikes me. Meh, once I would have taken you up on that, but nope. I'm not going to. End of. Poll is taking part on my talk page, if you want to vote. —Warw/Wick 11:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I gave my honest answer and you gave yours, and that's the whole of it; all I can say is, Your loss. But ours the greater: shame on us. Auron is right when he says this is no longer a very friendly place to be. (T/C) 12:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with YAV? Can you explain, in your own words, how Warwick's actions/comments have violated YAV? I have the same issue with what s/he/they are doing, but I really don't see any violation of the YAV policy in particular. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Nor do I understand what the constant occupation with YAV is.. —Warw/Wick 09:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
General asshattery. You aren't valuable if people ignore what you say. Ignoring what others say because one disagrees with it is even worse than simply ignoring it. Consensus isn't reached by putting people on your ignore list, it's reached by discussion and debate. -Auroñ 10:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
General asshattery doesn't break YAV. YAV is specifically targeted at one form of asshattery -- that of self-deprecation to appear as a victim/mytre. If I and Entropy ever get into an argument, and I say "screw you, I've been here way longer than you are" or if she says "screw you, I'm a Bcrat and you are just a lowly sysop", then neither of us are breaking YAV. We are just inappropriately pulling our rank/experience to trump the other in an argument. What breaks YAV are things like "I'm just a lowly sysop, you are the Bcrat, so yeah, whatever you say, you know everything". A user can only break YAV if the user places him/herself at lower value. Placing others at lower value is just being a jerk, it doesn't break YAV. At least not the way the spirit of the policy was originally intended for. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 10:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Er... I was always under the impression the policy existed mainly to empower newer users, as you said, but also to make sure older users didn't pull some kind of BS trump card like number of edits or time on the wiki. That's just how I always interpreted it. -Auroñ 10:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I would agree that the policy does discourage older/higher-ranked users to pull some trump on newer users, so I can understand if you disagree with my particular examples. Though if we look back to the original point, I would argue what Warwick was doing still doesn't qualify as breaking YAV even under the broader interpretation you used above. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 11:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. Asshattery is still my main concern with that user, and if bad enough, can be a bannable offense. -Auroñ 11:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fair. In this discussion I'm just concerned by the accusation of breaking YAV. You are the second person to accuse Warwick of that in a very short span of time, so I want to sort that particular issue out. Moving on to the topic of Warwick's behavior, I would advice to take into account that some user's message to Warwick is getting near/to the point of non-productive trolling and flaming, and so it might be more constructive/productive to be a bit softer in responding to Warwick's lashbacks. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 11:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to ban soon, but I haven't seen any real improvement in behavior. This last case wasn't the only one to concern me, but it's the only one I can easily find (spent about an hour trying to sort through archives; a pretty impossible task). I'll give it time. If, down the road, I feel a ban is still necessary, I don't want it to come as a huge surprise to anyone. So I left a note. -Auroñ 11:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Fyi, Auron, its pretty easy to sort through archives. I only have 37 of them. May seem like a lot, but it takes about 5 mins to sort through them all. As another note, you wouldn't see much behaviour improvment, since you're a) not active here and b), like everyone else, seem bent on trying to find the bad things about me. —Warw/Wick 11:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Auron may not be active here, but that's mainly because you don't see him out there every day in RC. He has...other ways of staying informed, and (like many users) when he is active, tends to spend that time observing rather than doing. I would also warn against making such statements as your last, since you can see a bit above that "self-deprecation to appear as a victim/[martyr]" is exactly what the confusing YAV is about. Without taking a blaming tone, you don't help the "victim" status by saying such things, at least in that tone. (whether they are true or not is irrelevant) (T/C) 12:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Get over yourself, Warwick. I don't know you. I don't hate you, I don't like you, and I wouldn't have anything to do with you if you weren't such a potential danger to the wiki. The most I've ever done with you is a single dungeon in EotN, and I don't even remember much from that. You might want to feel important and all that by declaring it you vs the world, but that simply isn't the case. As Entropy said... "When I agree with someone, it's not because I like them personally. When I disagree with someone, it's not because I hold a grudge against them. I just think they are right or wrong, and that's that." You can try to turn this into a martyr game, but beware; Karlos tried to do that, too, and I don't see him around anymore.
False assumptions and misinformation about my personality aside, my like or dislike of you has no bearing on my perception. I am sufficiently in control of my emotions (if there were any to begin with, seeing as I still don't care enough to be driven to anger or joy) to ensure they don't make my decisions for me. If your behavior was improving, I would admit it; if I disliked you, I would still, begrudgingly, admit it.
I've been watching (and listening, as Entropy has hinted) all along, hence my popping on to ban vandals and delete mass spam pages. I haven't watched GWiki as religiously as I have GWW, but I haven't been simply gone. No, the reason I haven't noticed your behavior improve is because, quite frankly, it hasn't. Stop trying to blame everything except yourself. -Auroñ 12:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Evidently you havn't been paying much attention. I've muched changed since I joined GuildWiki with my brother. —Warw/Wick 12:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Um...Auron is specifically referring to the time from when you "split" and became "May", to now. It's impossible to make a fair comparison if you bring the whole brother issue up again. And even people who are really active here wouldn't have known you from that far back anyways, except for those like Fire Tock (Spam King?) who knew both persons. (T/C) 12:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose you make a point there Entropy. Fire only knew my brother, tbh. Shadow knew both of us. And auron, here are some edit statistics
No, much as it looks, Im not making an issue of the amounts of edits you have. What I'm saying is that you say I'm focused on Userspace edits. I have more userspace edits than you, sure, but the statistics of mine say that basically I have more Mainspace/talk and such than you. I'm not saying you're not a great contributor, I'm just saying- Think about yourself before you say things like that. Unless, ofc, I misinterpruted you. In which case I apologise. —Warw/Wick 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
GW:YAV isn't enforcable. No body is going to ban a newbie for self-deprecating. The policy says "you have the same responsibility to respect our traditions and guiding principles, just like everybody else", and even that isn't enforced. It's an etiquette policy, is about being kind with yourself and others, and is probably the policy that best represents the spirit of the GuildWiki community, and that's why we should do the hard work of taking good care of it, despite the fact that it's not enforcable. Anything else about it, I already said it. And about Auron, I somehow had the impression that he was watching while I argued (or attempted to) with May (I might be crazy or paranoid), so I'd like thank him for letting it be. He was wise enough to realize it wasn't the right situation to get in bitchslapping Auron-style. It wouldn't had helped considering May's way of viewing things. So, thanks Auron.reanor 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Auron of Neon
(Main) 843 24.71%
Talk 479 14.04%
User 399 11.69%
User talk 1,203 35.26%
(Main) 1,043 15.22%
Talk 668 9.74%
User 1,188 17.33%
User talk 2,841 41.44%
Imo, the proportions often give a better idea of what someone's focus in contribs is, instead of the counts. On a side note, the only time I've ever accused anyone of violating YAV was when eloc accepted an RfA nomination on PvX and then opposed himself XD I think I banned him for three seconds, or something ^_^ But yea, YAV isn't really an enforceable policy like NPA or 1RV. I suppose you could ban people for repeatedly being self-deprecating, but that would just kinda reinforce their low opinion of themselves >.> And if someone's repeatedly belittling others, that would really fall more under NPA or just "being a jerk". ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 03:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So your edit count tells me what, exactly? That your attitude is anything more than piss poor? If anything, your insistence on diverting blame from yourself just tells me you're every bit as egotistical as when I first saw you.
Don't pull an Eloc. He was probably the only other user I've seen that placed even the slightest importance in edit counts (although I'd have to say you aren't as obsessive, unless you are secretly infatuated with having the most linked userpage on the wiki).
I will have to express my amusement at you using edit counts in your favor, though, when on your last real (or first real, according to you) RfA, you claimed that you weren't accountable for all those edits. And yet here you are claiming all of them as your own. Pick a story and stick to it tbh, lest people stop assuming good faith and start calling you a liar. -Auroñ 03:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Look at the actual statistics. The percents arn't what im talking about. Sure, everyone has a lot of usertalk edits, because there is less and less actual stuff to do on GuildWiki nowdays, since for the most part its done.
I myself am rather amused at the fact that you seem to be still being ignorant, or you just seem to not understand what I'm saying. As I said on the RfA, most of my brothers contributions were User talk edits, apart from a few(?) talkpage edits and a few dotted around. My point is that you have the lesser amount of useful edits.
Yeah, I'm egotastical, but then again, thats human nature, isn't it? Its one of those reasons why I personally hate humans and being one. Bleh, its a flaw of humanity. Everyone tries to get some self importance.
I'm hardly diverting blame from myself. I'm trying to make you stop being hypocritical, unless I misunderstood what you said on my archive. My attitude is, fyi, much different from what it was when I started on the wiki. Yeah, sure not much change has come in the last 2 months~ish, but not much noticable will happen in that sort of time. So bleh. —Warw/Wick 05:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)