User talk:Dirael

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

User:Shadowcrest/archivebox

Smash Wiki stuff[edit source]

I'm putting this here so I can respond to your posts (hopefully) without getting extraneous comments from other users. If after we've discussed it you would like to move it that is fine. Anyway, the point about the rollback before sysop was an idea based on Semicolon's RfA proposal whereby a current sysop or bureaucrat would need to approve the nomination before allowing the user the ability to run for sysop. This is only necessary due to the ridiculous number of pointless RfA's that popped up last June. This was why Randall eventually shut the whole thing down. You know my feelings on this, so I won't go into them further here. To prevent the useless number of RfA's that would pop up, I thought that there needed to be some kind of mechanism to prevent that. I wasn't foreseeing there being the same speech/vote process that there was for RfA in RfR's. I'll see what I can do about ironing out the process. Also, the reason that I feel that seeing what people do with the rollback status will show somethings about how s/he will act as a sysop. If the person uses the rollback powers as a way of making an edit war easier and try to say that they can do that as a rollback, it's a good sign that if s/he is made a sysop s/he will misuse the tools. Also, I had hoped that there would be more discussion before we just up and did the RfRs. I did the RfB as directly told to by Kirby King, and modeled it off the RfAs. KP just up and made the RfRs without consulting anyone simply because he wanted it. As for your question about someone becoming a bureau without becoming a sysop, I don't see the reason that someone, in an established wiki such as ours, should be simultaneously given adminship and the ability to confer said adminship in one feel swoop. It's really a minor point, and I mostly did it for the sake of consistency with what the established ideas on the wiki are. If the community wants it changed, that's fine. I hope this answered most of your questions. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the part about using it to stem the pointless RfA's make sense (enough for me to not WoT, anyway :P ). But it brings up an important point. There are quite a few users on SmashWiki that I would not ever trust to be an administrator (Oxico, KPerfekt are the ones on the rollback page atm) but I would fully trust with rollback rights. Therefore: Are you giving rollback only to people who could possibly be considered for sysop, or are you using it as a reverting tool? Because I don't really see how it could be used for both; users like KPerf who likely not ever get sysophood can make as many pointless RfA's as he wants, because he could be trusted with rollback.
I still don't get how rollback shows the whole trust thingy. If they abuse rollback, they could have just as easily abused the undo button; if they don't abuse the undo button, what's the point of wasting the time to see whether or not they abuse rollback? :/ (This assumes that rollback is used as anti-vandalism and not sysop req.)
I was under the impression that you were going to be the one making the RfR page, which is why I let the subject die out; I was waiting until you made the page before I criticized it too much :P
I agree that admin -> bureau is a minor point, even if I disagree with what it is. It's unlikely enough that a candidate that would be considered for both at the same time that I don't feel compelled to make a novel over it. If I'm going to pick my battles, this wouldn't be one of them. --Shadowcrest 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I see your points here. The rollback before sysop was just an idea I had and threw out. It hadn't even been discussed before KP (now rightfully blocked) up and did it. As for the sysop before bureau, the reason I have that as a limit is that if someone who shouldn't be a sysop was made a bureau they could just up and make themselves a sysop. As for the current RfAs and RfRs, I'm trying to get to them in time. This week is pretty open for me so I should be able to get to a lot of it (hint: expect a new tool to fall into your lap). I'll try to clean up the RfAs. The RfBs probably aren't going to be of importance, as Sky and Fyre have shown no interest (and even some disinterest) and Randall and Charitwo have failed. Any input you have on the RfA's would be great. Also, don't use the e-mail me feature. It goes to a phantom account of mine. I almost never check it. If you need to contact me, get my full name (be creative, you'll find it) and use the format "first-last@uiowa.edu" and you'll be able to reach me. Thanks Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't fail, it was pretty much an involuntary withdrawal because of IRL issues (women and all). But I would have liked to have put more effort into it if I was able to. I just wanted someone to get the position, and it seems you were the perfect person to fill the shoes. --Charitwo (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Short version[edit source]

* are Clarinet Hawk's points, ** are rebuttals, etc.

  • Implement rollback as a sysop requirement in order to reduce the # of RfA's from users that aren't qualified for anything more than a revert tool.
    • If rollback is only granted to candidates that could potentially be sysops, the # of poor RfA's stays low but users that can benefit from rollback (the revert tool) but should not have sysophood don't get rollback.
    • If rollback is granted to all users won't abuse it as a RV tool, combating vandalism is easier for a lot of people but the # of unqualified RfA's will be back at it's previous standard.
  • The process for rollback should not be an all-out RfA style nomination.
  • Rollback makes for a good "test period" to make sure users w/ rollback won't abuse sysop tools.
    • Users that abuse rollback could have abused reverts just as easily with the undo button, so denying rollback is nothing special.
    • Users that don't abuse the undo button will in all likelyhood not abuse rollback, thus wasting the trial time.
  • Adminship should be a requirement for bureaucratship.
    • Their jobs are too different to make one a pre-requisite for the other.

Extraneous comment[edit source]

Using RfR this way is an oblique way to adress a problem that'd better be solved directly one way or another (or that's sized up wrong). --◄mendel► 06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Bureaucrat at Smashwiki somehow not have access to sysop tools? That seems extraordinarily unlikely. You cannot say a bureaucrat's role is different from that of a sysop when a bureaucrat is ALSO a sysop. Felix Omni Signature.png 06:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
All current bureaucrats are sysops, but theoretically it is possible to be one and not the other. See [here]. --◄mendel► 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a kind of weak bureaucrat status... unaffected by rate limits. Neat. Felix Omni Signature.png 06:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

so i herd[edit source]

Lord Shadowcrest Failmore III is moving up in the world. :> Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 04:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

U herd rite tbh. Though it's only rollback :P --Shadowcrest 04:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
When you consider that the only person who is in rollback group on GuildWiki is me, that's quite a promotion :p Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
So I herd u liek rollback rights.Ereanorsign.jpgreanor 04:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
There are 2 on Smashwiki, but it's tacked on to sysop. Quite lame :P --Shadowcrest 04:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

First[edit source]

Supposed to be, at least. Felix Omni Signature.png 05:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk archive 5 is filled with red links of wub. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 05:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Laziness always comes back to bite you in the ass, doesn't it? --Shadowcrest 05:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice fix. :p There's nothing wrong with laziness, I like to blame MediaWiki code instead. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 05:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I would, except I know for a fact it broke because I typed out /placeholder instead of User talk:Shadowcrest/placeholder, so it doesn't really work here :P --Shadowcrest 05:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Promotion Party[edit source]

Strawberry+and+Champagne-3106.jpg

Cheers, and thanks to everybody who congratulated me! --◄mendel► 06:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! --Shadowcrest 06:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, one doesn't get promoted every day! --◄mendel► 06:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

lolwut imo[edit source]

nobody sent me a log. wtb. --Shadowcrest 15:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Get on irc if you can. --◄mendel► 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It's over. User:Warwick the Second. Best possible way. --◄mendel► 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
K well I just woke up, so logs are coming. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 20:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it and like and such as. Wtb CoF and talk tonight :) --Shadowcrest 20:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
No CoF like and such as, I've had enough of this staying up late crap. I'm in college after all, I need to turn my life around and like, focus on school. >.> First step for that is to stop waking up past noon and thus missing my morning (and some afternoon) classes. Second part is to do some homework instead of always logging on GW and/or IRC (but Wiki is okay - that's my job after all). Thirdly is starting homework before the very last hours before it's due. I did that for my term paper and it was a piece of crap tbh.
So yeah, we'll CoF eventually, but only when I have some real free time. Sorry. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 20:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I also wtb logs. —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I can do CoF with a hero if I need the money that bad, I really only ask because you need ectos/money :p --Shadowcrest 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I need ectos, not money. I mean, you can buy ecto for 5k or such, but I prefer to earn them, or buy them at discount price from generous players. It feels like a waste to pay for full price ecto. Oh and in any case, zkey ~= ecto, so I'll have them by this weekend at any rate. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It'd save time to just get the money via CoF and just buy them, especially considering our terribad ecto drop rates :p --Shadowcrest 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

600/Smite >>>>> 55[edit source]

4srs, unless you're running Great Burning Chicken Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 13:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yarly. 55 only wins when you're too lazy to find another person or bring a hero. --Shadowcrest 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
So I cleared CoF in HM as the 600 with Hero Smiter. No deaths. Jajaja Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
gtfo imo --Shadowcrest 15:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You should be happy, this means I don't have to share my crappy droprates with you anymore. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This means I have to lrn2hero, which may not work at all, since I'm just that terrible. --Shadowcrest 15:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
When I left, I was but the pupil, now I am The Master, etc. Now I want to know what Viper does. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 15:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

don't ban yourself just because you want to take a break[edit source]

It just unnecessarily adds entries to the RC, AND add more when you actually want to do something. When you wanna go on a break, just be on a break. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 03:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So we don't do "user request" bans any more? --◄mendel► 07:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a "user request", though, not initially. Salad only said that over IRC and he was being stubborn. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 09:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: There's no need to "crucify" yourself for teh posts that you made, coz you weren't posting from the best of mindframes (frustration etc.), you were not being intentionally malicious, no lasting harm was done, etc. and I think you are being too hard on yourself for making pretty human mistakes. So basically, this block doesn't do any good for anyone, is my opinion. Besides, beating oneself up is my job :) Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 11:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Besides, beating oneself up is my job :)" Wait, then what did you hire me for? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
...we did user request bans?
For the record, I wasn't just taking a break, and I wasn't just /rage'ing either. Those were part of it, but certainly not the entire part. I was angry at myself for getting angry on wiki, and I'm srsly tired of being an ass, yet it keeps happening.
...and without the ban, I would have been back in a couple hours, so :p --Shadowcrest 21:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You're being overly self-conscious. Nothing you've said, to my mind, comes across as asshole-ish. And I have max experience level in asshole. Felix Omni Signature.png 22:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been called an asshole in 12 different languages. Top that.--Gigathrash sig G.jpgîğá†ħŕášħ 23:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Events[edit source]

Before you post any replies on Wiki, I'd rather you discuss stuff on IRC first. (IRC != Wiki but it will avoid unnecessary confusion/spam.) Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverse Psychology[edit source]

Why don't you tell me what you envy about me? Or if envy isn't the right word, why you look up to me? What do you find about me that is desirable? What do you seek to emulate? Why am I a role model to you? (I heard that you said Auron is your role model, but that is incorrect, because you were clearly referring to me.) I think that by thinking along such lines, perhaps you will find the answers to the question were inside you all along, of why I'm popular and such.

If you don't want to discuss it here (public wiki is public) then use IRC or something. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 08:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience as a psychologist, girls tend to be desirable :PEreanorsign.jpgreanor 16:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
See? I'm right :P --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Or are you wrong? Since apparently the header makes things go all reversy. Rsz PLSig.jpg 17:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm....[edit source]

So this is where you get many of your subpages from on SmashWiki. I see. By the way, are you an admin here? It seems like it.Smorekingxg456 (Talk)15:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Shadowcrest is a vigilante vandal-killer whose powers are inherited by divine right. He holds the Mandate of Heaven, and none dare cross him. Felix Omni Signature.png 16:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That answers that question.Smorekingxg456 (Talk)17:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, this is GuildWiki. I'm also a sysop here. --Shadowcrest 22:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop failing[edit source]

And fix IRC. I keep getting G-Lined.--Łô√ë Fear.îğá†ħŕášħ 00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I missed what you're saying. --Shadowcrest 00:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wintersday Userbox![edit source]

To commemorate the effort you've put into preparing GuildWiki for our Wintersday celebration, I have created a special userbox at Template:User Wintersday:

Gwwintersday.png This user helped bring Wintersday to GuildWiki!

Wear it with pride! <3 Felix Omni Signature.png 09:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Salad[edit source]

giver me ops bak. —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You should never have had them. And btw, this was a collaborative decision. --Shadowcrest 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I responded via email. --◄mendel► 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User groupies[edit source]

Member of: Autoconfirmed users, Users, Bureaucrats, Sysops, emailconfirmed, rollback (User group rights)

I told you it exists. But it seems there is no way, even for Bureaucrat, to access that list and see who is on it. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 05:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mendel told me that emailconfirmed existed on IRC earlier, but then discovered there's no way to prot for only emailconfirmed. We should ask Kyle? --Shadowcrest 05:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If you think the issue is going to be that serious, then sure. At least we would be "getting involved with Wikia". :P Why this is funny. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 05:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd be willing to ask out of sheer curiosity tbh. :P --Shadowcrest 05:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sleeping Giant Awakens[edit source]

Hi, I'm back Shadowcrest, after a four month hiatus, I finally reinstalled Guild Wars. Culprits of my absence include Smash Bros, Left 4 Dead, Fallout 3, and Spore. But, anyways just wanted to say hi, and congrats for being super super super admin. (I figured you would have that by now lol)... --Darunian 19:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you get on now?[edit source]

Plz? I finally re-installed Guild Wars and want to give you my gift.--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 03:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also looking to deliver a gift to you before the party, can you pm me in game (The Enchanter Zur) whenever you're online and free? --Clamiam Sandaljack 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Three Wise Norn map[edit source]

hehe, beat me to it by 30 seconds!! Had just crop it up and about to upload when saw your update. Just goes to show brilliant minds think alike... or is it fools never differ? ;) --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 03:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If yours is better, by all means upload it, I won't be offended :P
And definitely brilliant minds. :D --Shadowcrest 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, mine is exactly the same as yours (except used letters instead of pink dots to denote NPC locations). And yes, quite right, brillant minds, completely agree. --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Check your e-mail[edit source]

When you wake up. Raffle stuff. Felix Omni Signature.png 08:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Raffle tix[edit source]

Hello there, saw you were handling raffle ticket sales due to Felix being away...would like to buy a couple, but I'm unsure how to contact you in game...a lil help, please. I can be contacted in game as 'Dosearius Takerius'.--Dosearius 14:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Look/click here. --◄mendel► 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

oh shit[edit source]

Did I miss the party? Dangit!--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I at least know who got my gift?--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 19:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you not check your e-mail or something? Also, my buttons dissapeared again ><Łô√ë Ho ho ho.îğá†ħŕášħ 20:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I never got an email.--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 22:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
A response would be nice, Shadow...--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 22:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

UglyFox[edit source]

FF sure makes things look ugly compared to IE imho, especially on this site (although I know some of it is because my .css is designed for IE). I was feeling moderately inclined to get it, but much less so now. :\ While I usually value performance over appearance (*cough*Vista Aero*cough*), I find the site is plain harder to navigate like this, and that's unacceptable. Sigh. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 00:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you make a screenshot and circle the areas of ugliness on it and post it, please? --◄mendel► 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In FF, the text looks pixelly and crapified... that's why I don't use it, looking at RC is a pain in the ass. What are you referring to? --Shadowcrest 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hit Ctrl-+ for bigger text? --◄mendel► 00:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
To get the text to the same readable size that I am used to, I have to sacrifice resolution, so that makes everything else on the page huge by comparison. Resulting in unnecessary exercise for my scroll fingers. (Also, Vivaldi font is not supported.)
There are other random things that irritate me but since this isn't "my" computer I'm not at liberty to make a screenshot etc. (Stupid user permissions lock...and no, I'm not willing to make a .bat hax file to get around them) Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 00:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be possible to alter the whole wiki's text to a bigger font, without zooming in on everything? --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

stop being afk[edit source]

and get back on gw plz. Cress Arvein Cress sig.JPG 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

documentation[edit source]

wanna document the result of your findings so when other admins have the same question they won't have to test again? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 21:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure.
Auto-block should only last a day, no matter what the duration was of the ban on the account. Logging into the account reapplies the block as far as I can tell- staying off of the blocked account should prevent the auto-block from reapplying itself. --Shadowcrest 21:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Shussh, don't reveal the results of the tests! It might reveal our master plans. :C
I had Salad test, Pan, since I was curious about how detrimental it actually was to check the box "Also block the last known IP of this user". I tend to not use it because I don't like blocking innocents, but this seems to imply that it is relatively harmless (as long as the blockee doesn't keep browsing every day of their ban, anyway) Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 21:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure autoblock reapplies itself when the blocked account tries to edit. One thing you need to watch out for, though, is if the blocked user is for whatever reason unblocked, you'll need to go un-autoblock the IP, as autoblocks prevent anyone using that IP, even other registered users, from editing. This page has more info. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

mpooca[edit source]

<3 — Nova Neo-NovaSmall.jpg(contribs) 17:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I know right <3 --Shadowcrest 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosalie[edit source]

In the Netherlands, and thus in my English pronounciation, it would be Rose-ah-lie. Thought you might want to know. I was the one who voted explain on talk. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were asking about the Pokemon -_- Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 20:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that they are anagrams today when I was sitting bored during drivers ed today <3 --Shadowcrest 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You want to know a good anagram? Handel's Messiah -> Hai Mendel's ass. Felix Omni Signature.png 23:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You lost an 'h' in there. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 23:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Mendel's HASS (Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences), obv Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hah I mendel's ass. Felix Omni Signature.png 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In my mother tongue, "Hass" means hate. --◄mendel► 00:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As a verb? So it could mean "Hi, hate mendel [prz]?" --Shadowcrest 00:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"Hass" is a noun; the verb is "hassen" and has several inflection forms. --◄mendel► 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
BARACK HASSEN OBAMA '12 Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn, Entropy just made me realize that come 2012, we won't be able to say "oh-eight" or "oh-nine" anymore. And "ten" or "twelve" sounds crappy.
"Obama twelve!" just has no ring to it. --GEO-logo.png Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 03:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've actually heard people say "oh-twelve". It makes me sad. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)We will have to resort to "tewnty-twelve", which has slightly better ring to it, even if it does sound like eleventy-seven or something dumb like that. Also, yes very very sad. oh-twelve FTW?Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ro-sah-lee (or -li). Accent + dialect = ftw. Dutch is full of crap, too. --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
^ Yup. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 10:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

msn[edit source]

doth you have it — Nova Neo-NovaSmall.jpg(contribs) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

he doth not. :( GET EET SALAD —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
He's not allowed to. It's too dangerous. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Entropy is doin it rite. After all, I could give out personal information and be abducted, raped, and killed...! --Shadowcrest 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Or killed, abducted, and raped. Felix Omni Signature.png 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

^MSN[edit source]

Is irrelevant; Gmail please :( --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that is actually a good idea. Built-in chat is gud and under-the-radar. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you create a free Live ID ( https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx ) and then sign onto MSN through http://www.meebo.com ? It's in-browser, no downloads. 208.44.247.101 14:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosalie[edit source]

Rose - Ali. Silly foreign pronunciations. --Progger.png - talk 11:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

header[edit source]

azzacasters r strong n brave in pve Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 04:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

more like terrifail and outclassed --Shadowcrest 04:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosalicrest[edit source]

Looks alright, but you might want to increase the font size a bit, as you have a fair bit of white...er...pinkspace left over. I also like to turn italics on, and sometimes bold, to make it look a bit more special. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 03:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

salutations and/or greetings[edit source]

hello rosalie, how are you today, do i get brownie points (or brownies) for getting your name right — Nova Neo-NovaSmall.jpg(contribs) 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but you do get some leafy goodness --Shadowcrest 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Epic Tidal Waves of Walls of Text and links[edit source]

Rotflols over you <3 --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

!gtfo Viper --Shadowcrest 23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Moot point[edit source]

But why do I suddenly have 200 access? RandomTime 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We (I'm not naming names here) got tired of you always kicking Warwick randomly. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
^. In order to keep you/her protected from her/you, I gave you both 200. It was either give you 200 or give her 400, so I picked the lesser of two evils. :p --Shadowcrest 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And the fact that I can't remember the last time I kicked warwick is... RandomTime 21:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

politikz[edit source]

In Canada, the Liberals are considered a moderate party. lolgg. — Nova Neo-NovaSmall.jpg(contribs) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Poll[edit source]

2 things: Where is the no comment option, and why do you want to know wether you are approcable? Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 11:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No comment = don't vote? :/
I want to know what other people think because self-perception is highly unreliable. I also want to compare it with SmashWiki results. --Shadowcrest 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The no comment, because I want to vote, so you can see I voted. And because its really the only vote I want to give. No comment. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 10:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You know...[edit source]

This was epic.

Praise aside, good to know someone finally got the little bugger. Renian Signature.png Renian (T|L|B) 02:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother to ban someone for what are clearly joke vandalisms. There was only two of them and they were easily fixed. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You do have a point, I suppose... But when it comes to non-humor-oriented wikis, I think a policy of tolerating no vandalism is best. Less monkeywork for the random editors and bots to do if the habitual offenders are blocked from making changes, right? Renian Signature.png Renian (T|L|B) 02:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There were 6 over 9000s and 1 non-meme vandalism. I could have gone with the standard 3 days, but why pass up such an excellent opportunity? --Shadowcrest 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I must be very tired, because I missed four of those while reading through all recent changes. :\ Nevermind. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 03:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You must be very tired, because those 4 were from the day before >.> --Shadowcrest 15:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Cake Day![edit source]

Birthday Cupcake.png RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 13:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday Shadowcrest. Cress Arvein Cress sig.JPG 14:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hippy Burfday! Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 14:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hippo Barfday! Happy birthday Shadowcrest!--Progger.png - talk 14:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy birthday! --◄mendel► 15:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy birthday :> --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

the cake is a lie Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 17:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Progger, I was gonna say Hippy Barfday, untill I realized that woulnd be very nice and celebrating. Nice to see atleast 1 person had the bad taste to do it ;-) Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Gj on aging Felix Omni Signature.png 20:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

+1 Lord Belar 22:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks everyone. <3 --Shadowcrest 20:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

so, guess what[edit source]

...and then my mind went blank. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 05:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


sparknotes[edit source]

ya rly --71.246.218.44 01:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sparknotes suck. In fact, any sort of pre-packaged notes suck. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 05:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't suck as much as Black Boy does. Richard Wright needs to gtfo. --Shadowcrest 14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Is that the book where the boy lights the house on fire and then hides underneath it while it burns to the ground, or some ridiculous shit like that? Or am I thinking of Invisible Man? Either way they were both bad. You have my forgiveness. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 14:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

note[edit source]

i can spam ur talkpage wile ur goen — Nova Neo-NovaSmall.jpg(contribs) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So can I. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 05:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm here too. Cress Arvein Cress sig.JPG 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yay! A signature collection! RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 18:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Joy. Also; me too! --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How wonderfull. I'll add mine too... Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
wry u do dis --Shadowcrest 23:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
To teach you that it's never good to announce when you'll be away. You do want to be a Senator someday, don't you?... Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 23:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well you see, I'd rather my constituents know I am away then have them worry I am dead and elect a new leader in my absence :< --Shadowcrest 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't tell you from day to day whether any particular member of the government was dead or alive, so I don't think it would matter... except to your fanboys and the paparazzi, who would track your every move! But that's why you have a PR department. "Senator Salad is away on confidential business and cannot be reached at this time." Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Try looking under the desk.--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Whorehouse imo. --90.196.43.44 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the Tibetan monastary is reserved for GWW people. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

y so democratic[edit source]

Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Salad is a pretty cool guy. eh does pools and doesn't afraid of anything.
also, secret secret is secret, so keep it quiet bro --Shadowcrest 00:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Salad is a pretty cool guy. eh gets mems right and doesn't afraid of anything.
Super Cool Story Bros. was a great game. I could never complete the "Lost Levels" though. Stuck on one of the very last levels in World 8...there's just this giant wall that you can't move past. So there must be a pipe or a hidden vine or something. But I gave up on that years ago... :\ Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats[edit source]

You have literally judged a book by its cover. Ultimate fail. Felix Omni Signature.png 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If there were actually a chance greater than .0000000001% that it would be worth my time reading, then yes, I would agree. Any books where it is not clear how good/bad they are- unlike this one- should be read before judged. But I don't have to read this to know how terrible it is, unless the title was a joke and the book has nothing to do with religion. The subject alone isn't worth my time- the only reason I would read such a book would be for 1) quick lulz or 2) to raise my blood pressure beyond healthy amounts. So from the start, it's a waste of my time. Then, not only is it a bad subject that probably won't change anyone's mind anyway, it has a title "You can lead an atheist to evidence but you can't make him think." To me, this suggests that the author is another religious zealot- seriously, what evidence can he possibly suggest that has any factual basis- who is again not worth my time. This book reminds me horribly of Conservapedia- there is very little about not only the cover but the title and nature of the book that suggests it is worth the money or time it would take to read it.
By the way, there are many more things that are more aptly described as "ultimate fail" than this. --Shadowcrest 14:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
/agree with Salad. Reading the review shows that it's simply stupidity, and that the writer can't spell (I mean, "down are throats". WTF?). Although it did give me a good laugh.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 14:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
First off, I know it's not obvious, but that review was written by an "angry skeptic" who was stereotyping religious reason. Look at the last sentence of the review. That's not what the book says or contains at all. It's just some jerk thinking he's funny.
Second, it might surprise you to know this, but the vast majority of hard scientists- biologists, chemists, physicists, etc- are in fact people of faith. This is because there is a huge and overwhelming body of evidence supporting the existence of God or a similar being which is obviously and immediately present in the laws of nature. My high school physics teacher was an Augustinian priest with five degrees in various fields of science.
So basically, you can think what you want, but don't be a jerk about it. Felix Omni Signature.png 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Felix about the "don't be a dick" part, but I'm curious to see this "overwhelming body of evidence"... Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 18:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
^, but not only that; "the vast majority of hard scientists are in fact people of faith."? Not unthinkable, but still. A vast majority? --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
ec x2I am fully aware that the review was not written to summarize the book or any such. Notice I didn't mention that review anywhere in the above. Though I strongly suspect those sorts of things are what the author will imply with his writings, that's not what I based my judgment on.
I am similarly aware that many scientists are religious, and I am also aware that the Church accepts most sciences. But just because we do not know what happened is there any evidence to suggest there is a God(s) (and similarly just because we don't know doesn't suggest there isn't). Given this absence of cold, hard fact (all we truly know is that we don't know- theories are theories), there is no true evidence to point me to; we don't know if there is "one true religion", or even if there is a true religion; I am offended by the title itself, since while I may be an "angry skeptic" I am also very capable of thinking, and the author is still just as unable as anyone else to provide actual evidence and "answer the questions of those angry skeptics." I can get up and start saying things that I believe but have no basis for too, but that doesn't make it right/true nor does it somehow self-verify that those who do not agree cannot think despite the "evidence" they have been shown. --Shadowcrest 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
But would you actually read the book to find out for sure? That is the pertinent question here. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 19:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If any factual breakthroughs were found and this book contained them I am sure I would have already heard about them, so I am positive that I would recieve no facts to prove that God(s) exists. I would possibly read it to see how this author puts it, but since he is just as unsure as everyone else on Earth my "questions" are not being answered and as such the chances of conversion are slim and none. --Shadowcrest 19:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Slim AND none? :P Good find, though. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Slim and none is an expression my parents use all the time... guess I've picked it up :p
I didn't find this- Auron did. I just thought it was worth putting on my userpage. --Shadowcrest 19:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the intended expression there would be that "chances are slim TO none," as in very low or approaching zero, which actually makes logical sense, and that one I have heard quite a bit. :P Go tell your parents. ;) RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 22:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The author isn't implying that angry skeptics are incapable of thinking, but rather that they refuse to consider the evidence that apologists present. Which is exactly what you're doing. I hope you see the irony here. Felix Omni Signature.png 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You are every bit as guilty of said irony as I am, having presented no evidence and ignoring the whole "we don't know bit". --Shadowcrest 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
But I'm not an angry skeptic, nor am I smart enough to present convincing evidence. And we do know, but the knowledge comes from both faith and reason. Felix Omni Signature.png 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Unsupported statements don't really count for much; we (as in, every "angry skeptic" in the world) have still not been presented with fact. We may not be able to tell you with facts (keyword: facts) what did create everything, but as previously stated neither can you.
Given the choice between "angry skeptic" and "blind faith", I'd choose the skeptic. My choice is my own, and neither is more correct than the other; this is a very old argument and it hasn't really changed since like ever- nothing proven has ever emerged.
If it offends you, I can remove it. But that is the farthest this argument can ever go without falling into an endless ocean of opinion. --Shadowcrest 20:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Reason + faith = informed faith, not blind. Felix Omni Signature.png 20:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This whole thread is epic lulz. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
So was boobies to those who didn't care. point? --Shadowcrest 20:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
RE: Entropy; here are two said lulz:
  • (1) The author Ray Comfort had a TV ministry called "The Way of the Master" = lol!
  • (2) Here's a quote from the Wikipedia page about him: "Comfort has no formal training in theology." This is more than enough in my mind to discount him and his writings from intelligent theological discussions about Atheism or any other religious topic. Besides that, his videos and his writings rarely reference the Bible, if at all. He claims to have been influenced by the writings of Charles Spurgeon (a gentleman and a scholar) but doesn't appear to have actually read any of his writings. PRO TIP RAY: Don't post if you don't know what you're talking about! --Raj4h 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I still fail to see how any of this automatically makes the book dismiss-worthy. Don't you think it speaks to the strength of one's beliefs if you are willing to have them criticized; if you stand firm in the face of opposition; and yet you are willing to lend an open ear and mind to those that disagree? Atheists can be every bit as "blind zealots" as those who profess faith.
Please note that this message is aimed at no one in particular, and that I am a hypocrite. Nevertheless, that doesn't make what I say any less true (hypocrisy is a logical fallacy which is far too often used these day to dismiss legitimate truths/opinions). Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 21:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There are indeed stubborn zealots from both ends of the spectrum, but I missed how this applies to this specific book.
Go here and read the excerpt they list. As early as the second sentence, he fails to acknowledge the other side and continues to do so for the rest of the excerpt. Instead of trying to persuade- which is the only thing someone could possibly accomplish with a book like this besides making money- he merely asserts that what he believes is true and bases it on claims that have no basis- and then states that "The issue isn't the existence of God." tbvh, lolwtf? Not only does Mr. Comfort base his entire work on a claim that may or may not be true, but he fails to even recognize that the other side's arguments are just as viable as his own. This book spectacularly fails to address the issue (and even explicitly rejects the actual issue as the issue- Atheists don't believe in God -> pretty obvious controversy) and merely spouts ancient clichés that have been repeated over and over again since forever.
It's not just this book that's dismissable as failure. All books like and such as this one that just state "God is real because I believe it/the Bible says so/my pastor told me" are failure. In the same vein, all books that state "God doesn't exist kbye" are just as failure. In my opinion, all religion books are failure*- something new is hardly ever presented, so I really don't see the point in them. I just happened to pick this one to mock because it was so nicely handed to me and for propaganda purposes. --Shadowcrest 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
*see below for clarification
"all religion books are failure" -- congrats, now it's not just a single book any more that you're judging from prejudice. Way to go! --◄mendel► 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, question: Have you or do you ever plan to read the Bible (don't care which) or any other holy text? Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Mendel: I aim to please
Entropy: Clarification needed: Original books such as Bible, Qur'an, Torah etc etc are ok because they are the "founding documents" of a religion or whatever and actually serve a legitimate purpose. "propaganda books" like the one mentioned above, this or this are just irritating rehashes of old arguments and aggravate the conflict which is already irritating enough in society.
Also, I see I am fighting a losing battle anyway so whatever. --Shadowcrest 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Theology is a science. Every science has its kooks. ;-) --◄mendel► 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the key words for the second book listed there is "weasel frog." Felix Omni Signature.png 23:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Everyone is of course entitled to do with their time what they feel is worthwhile. But I would hope that, given no more pressing needs, you would be open to reading/skimming such publications in the hopes of finding some grains of truth or other things to reflect upon...or at the very least, so that you may understand the arguments of both sides. To understand the opponent is to win the battle. The best lies and falsehoods are the ones based on a grain of real truth or wisdom...there are people and ideas which are genuinely crazy and should not be heard, but extremism is not inherently mad; extremists can, in fact, be perfectly rational in all other respects. Although even in madness one may find greatness - you may have heard of On the Road, an epic novel written in three weeks on one 120-foot piece of paper, fuelled by nothing more than coffee (yeah right).
The Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, etc. are often dismissed out of hand by the ignorant or hateful who classify them along with books like You Can't Lead An Atheist... : religious propaganda drivel with nothing to offer but hatemongering (or whatever the Argument of the Month happens to be). It is good to know you are not one of those people. The simplest rebuttal is the one I like best: even if you have no interest in religion, they are worth reading for the stories, which offer some pretty universal moral lessons, no matter your background. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 23:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

btw[edit source]

omg omg omg Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The movie was embarrassingly bad. In the book, they go on and on about how gorgeous all the vampires are- the only good looking vampires were Emmett, Alice, and Victoria. Everyone else- especially Rosalie, who was supposed to be the most beautiful of them all- was hideous. And even the humans look bad- the only one who looks good is Mike. Bella looks retarded and Edward looks like a psycho. They have absolutely no chemistry, and indeed the only couple who looked good together were Alice and Jasper. In addition, they mutilated the storyline, and the parts that they actually included were bad/wrong. In short, it was a terrible movie that does the book absolutely no justice. You know, it just occurred to me that the only book I could think of that I had read that was good and had a terrible movie was the Hobbit. But now, Twilight definitely tops the list of movies that 100% fail compared to the book. :<
...I'll still see the movie ofc, but my expectations are low :P --Shadowcrest 23:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
So you watch teenage girls' tv shows AND read their books? Shame on you. Felix Omni Signature.png 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well you wouldn't want to judge a book by it's cover... :P
But really, they were just really good books. Back when the movie came out and a bunch of my girl friends went to go see it at the midnight showing on premier night (a school night!), I was like lolwut srsly it can't be that good. But then I read it... and it was awesome. Like, <3333 it. Nova can attest. --Shadowcrest 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Nyeeeh, okay man. Maybe I'll read it to impress chicks. Felix Omni Signature.png 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Or have them stare at you funny and call you extremely feminine :P --Shadowcrest 00:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'll read the Twilight series if you read a reputable book of Christian apologetics. Felix Omni Signature.png 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You drive a hard bargain.
All 4 books? And what book? --Shadowcrest 00:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
All 4 books, and you can choose the book, as long as it's written by an actual theologian with degrees and peer reviews and stuff. It can also be as old or as recent as you want. Felix Omni Signature.png 01:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
But I wouldn't know where to look :( --Shadowcrest 01:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Eh, what's your public library's website? Felix Omni Signature.png 01:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
1 --Shadowcrest 01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what all you have available, but ones I read (not recently) "More than a Carpenter", "Creator and the Cosmos", "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton, and "Mere Christianity". --JonTheMon 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
We did end up deciding on "Mere Christianity," actually. Felix Omni Signature.png 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've read Twilight and New Moon, they weren't bad, they just wern't very good. Scratch that - they were terrible. Plot synopsis is "oh, I'm a teenage girl and I go to school. Hey, that guy's a vampire and he looks hot, I'm going to fall in love" They fall in love. END" anyway, i'm tired BedTime 02:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Lol, I just saw this. Nice sig RT. — Nova Neo-NovaSmall.jpg(contribs) 02:37, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Partial Nudity[edit source]

Yes. Also, reminds me of Kerrigan. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 03:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Teasers must die! (that goes for you too GW2)Ereanorsign.jpgreanor 04:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

psst[edit source]

"slurry will be late for phoenix"...that'll be all your monies please =) Phenaxkian 18:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How Gigathrash got their name[edit source]

--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ 08:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You missed the option "That's less retarded than Shadowcrest", because it is. Did you know Poke's name came from Pokemon? --Shadowcrest 15:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Giga Drain would be a good move except it only has 5 PP, and its power isn't nearly enough to justify that, let alone in real competitive play (imo). Thrash is an amusing move, although of all the moves of that type, I most prefer Outrage (the dragon one). Entropy Entropy Sig 2.jpg (C) 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Demigod Wiki[edit source]

Hey, things have changed since you last edited Demigod Wiki. Care to chime in on what's going on? --JonTheMon 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"And please lose the attitude."[edit source]

As you have found out, this may not be the least controversial way to phrase a warning - and it didn't belong into the discussion itself in the first place. --◄mendel► 14:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Bigger fish to fry. Entropy Entropy Sig 2.jpg (C) 20:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Battle Arena[edit source]

Ah I created a poll for it :P But I say Yes xD -- F1Sig.png † F1© Talk 06:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Polls still borked for me, but we already discussed this before, and you know my opinion. I won't stop you, though... Entropy Entropy Sig 2.jpg (C) 08:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be an awesome idea, even if it was just in the userspace.--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 03:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I currently possess so little initiative that I am totally uninterested in making it. I'll support you if you decide to make it, but right now I won't set it up myself. Sorry. --Shadowcrest 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"IT'S NOT A FREAKING REFERENCE!" returns![edit source]

Good work.--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd be happy to know that people have continued to use that even while you were away. It's your legacy on wiki. Entropy Entropy Sig 2.jpg (C) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Haha, awesome. I left a (slightly humorous) mark on the wiki--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 22:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I have seen it atleast 3 times in the past month, and Nazgir has used it the most. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 06:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Me too! Felix Omni Signature.png 06:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
oh gj felix <3
Thanks marco, and congrats on your neverending fame on wiki :p --Shadowcrest 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll 2[edit source]

Ros is pretty hot. I saw a cosplayer at ACEN. Felix Omni Signature.png 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am entirely unsurprised by this. I do not know if this is good or bad D: --Shadowcrest 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a good thing, it means that unlike Meg from FE10, someone else likes Rosalina too. Despite my general aversion to that sort of artstyle/the way Nintendo usually chooses to portray their characters, I thought Rosalina was pretty cute. Would have made an excellent assist trophy, tbh. It would have been even cooler to replay Mario Galaxy with her on a new game+.
I'm not very fond of the Wind Waker depiction of Zelda. Young Link/Toon Link is a pretty cool guy in so many ways (his facial expressions!), and he can even be cute too...but I don't like Zelda like that. I was also pretty pissed that she wears eyeliner at that age, and not even subtly. It's disgusting. :( I have to say I liked Tetra better.
Zelda in Twilight Princess is, imho, the best or second best depiction of Zelda that they've ever had. It was a bit of a shock that she was brunette instead of the usual blonde, but then again Link wasn't quite blond either in that game. I think what I like most about that Zelda is that they actually bothered to make her do something useful in TP...not only can she ride horses and shoot the Light Arrows, but she has a sword! It's too bad she never got to use it (except in "puppet" mode), but it was awesome nonetheless. A lot like Elincia from FE9 and FE10. Early on she was just another weak damsel in distress who couldn't do anything to help herself, and she wore nonfunctional royal finery even while travelling with a mercenary group, etc...but then! At a certain point in the game, she becomes a playable unit, a sword-wielding, armor-wearing Pegasus Knight who is actually a very good unit...and in 10 she can become a killing machine. Oh, and her weapon is unbreakable as well as one of the best in the game. I love that. ^^ I guess that's just one of my personal grievances, though...
Peach...walks a delicate balance between those two lines. In some games she has been just a helpless damsel, in others she could kick some serious ass. Peach in Mario Tennis or Mario Kart or Super Smash Bros Melee? Or how about SUPER MARIO RPG?! (One of) the best characters, hands down. Yet at the same time she is almost always excessively "girly". Peach is a paradox, and I guess that's why I never really like or dislike her. She has also been portrayed a million different ways...none of which I've ever really liked, though Super Mario RPG was good. Mostly because she wielded the almighty frying pan of death. :) But anyway, she definitely doesn't come even close to the same league as Rosalina or Zelda.
Also, I'm surprised that you don't have Midna on there. Entropy Entropy Sig 2.jpg (C) 04:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I got a Wii not long ago, so now I actually have some idea of what the poll is talking about. As good as Super Mario Galaxy is, for Rosalina to have her hair always cover one eye looks stupid. How is she supposed to get any depth perception like that? Perhaps the parallax from having two eyes doesn't help much when looking at distant stars, but what about wandering around the observatory?
Seeing Princess Toadstool referred to as "Peach" was jarring. Even though I always thought Toadstool was a dumb name for a character that probably sounded better in Japanese than English and came from an era when quite a few translations were rather bad, changing it after it had been the same in so many games was still weird. For what it's worth, Toadstool made Mario 2 quite a bit easier than any of the other characters.
As for Zelda in Twilight Princess, I couldn't get very far into the game. It wasn't an "I'm stuck here" sort of thing, but rather a "this is stupid, I'm going to go do something else", kind of like why it took me so long to beat GWEN. I liked the first three Zelda games, and blamed issues with Link's Awakening more on the limitations of the Game Boy than game design, so I figured a new, highly rated Zelda game should be a sure thing. The game doesn't seem remotely similar to the first four Zelda games, though. The first time I played, it was for about an hour and a half, and I didn't even get to fight anything. Zelda 1 drops you off and basically lets you go kill things immediately, without any real justification of why you're supposed to kill things. A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening make you take a few minutes to get a sword and shield, but you're still in combat very quickly--and before you get your sword in the latter game.
The next time I played (over a month later), I finally got to fight some things. I made it well into the Forest Temple. But even up to that point, the game is mostly fighting with the camera, fighting with the controls, trying to randomly guess the right spot to stand for the game to let you advance, and otherwise trying to randomly guess what the designers were thinking when they designed whatever part you're on. What combat there is seems to be just trying to get the camera to point in the right direction so that you can Z-target a mob (that is, fighting more against the camera than the mobs), and then swing away without any further aiming. Maybe it gets better further in, but that sort of unaimed recklessness would have gotten you killed almost immediately in any of the first four Zelda games.
I realize that the Zelda games have always had some puzzles, but in the first four games, they were relatively few and scattered among a game that was mostly about the combat. A large fraction of the "puzzles" consisted of "you have to kill everything in some particular room to advance", and you'd likely do that anyway in the normal course of playing the game. Only a few were all that hard to figure out (e.g., using a ladder to bomb a random wall to get to the eighth dungeon of the second quest of Zelda 1, jumping through a wall in the fifth palace of Zelda 2, or pushing a block into a hole, then taking the right route to get down to the next basement without going far enough away that it resets and you lose the block in the fifth dungeon of the dark world of Zelda 3), and those were far into a game. Having to randomly use a particular piece of grass and then click on what looks like a broken coconut shell way off in the distance in order to advance would never have made it into the first half of the game in any of the early Zelda games, let alone before you get to actually fight anything, as it does in Twilight Princess.
Maybe I'm just disappointed that I was expecting a combat game and Twilight Princess doesn't seem to be one. It's kind of like picking up a new Mario game and learning that Mario can no longer jump. I'm fine with no jumping in Guild Wars, but a Mario game really needs to let Mario jump on or over things (which even Super Mario RPG and Super Mario Kart do to some degree), and a Zelda game needs to have some combat. Thankfully, Super Mario Galaxy didn't provide that shock, though I was surprised to see how explicitly Nintendo wanted it to be a sequel, not just with an occasional homage to the previous games (as Super Mario RPG did), but often even copying the background music entirely from an earlier game. Or maybe I'm just disappointed to learn the hard way that, unlike the early Zelda games, when you die in Twilight Princess, it doesn't save your game for you.
So anyway, the moral of the story is that I can get way off topic. Quizzical 05:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll definitely agree to you that the "wind-up" for Twilight Princess is loooooooooong. Uncharacteristically long for a Zelda game, even considering some of the stupid stuff you had to do in Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask beginnings. (Wind Waker got into combat pretty quick if you didn't dawdle to chat with townspeople etc.) Do you know how long it took me to figure out how to catch a fish, let alone deliver it to the cat? That took me hours. I was about ready to give up the game at that point, I was pretty frustrated. And yeah, it actually takes quite some time before you get a "real" sword, or even look like Link. That was an unusual step.
However, in my opinion, the game definitely gets way better once you get past the intro stuff. There are truly some difficult puzzles in Twilight Princess; some are, as you say, "fighting with the camera" to find that one grapple point or whatever. Others are just confusing and make you think. For example, in the third dungeon, there's a big puzzle where you've got to direct water into certain rooms...you want certain ones flooded and others dry. But the catch is that the water is directed via stairway, so you could also inadvertently block access to that very room you just wanted to get into. Quite a bit of creative Hookshotting is necessary.
I'm sure you are also familiar with the "50 floors of fights with difficult enemies" thing that the more recent Zelda games have put in, such as the Savage Labyrinth in Wind Waker. In Twilight Princess, it is known as the Cave of Ordeals (or Trials, I forget)...and it is, for once, actually quite a challenge. The final floor has the usual 3 Darknuts (4 on subsequent playthrough), but Darknuts are actually difficult foes in Twilight Princess. They are intelligent foes who not only jump out of the way of Bombs, Arrows, and other projectiles, but they block 95% of your regular attacks, and often followup with unblockable counters. Most special sword techniques (another aspect of TP which made it quite fun) also don't fool them. So it really comes down to being patient and waiting for them to slip up and make a mistake or otherwise give you an opening. I really appreciated actual challenges like that. Entropy Entropy Sig 2.jpg (C) 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that I didn't play the earlier Zelda games for the puzzles. There weren't enough of them to justify playing the game on that basis, and most of what there was could easily be "solved" by killing every mob in every room and trying to go through every possible door, even if you have to walk through a wall, blow it up, or whatever. Games that go too heavily toward solving puzzles tend to be boring once you've solved them all, and thus have no replay value. Games like Adventures of Lolo, Lemmings, or The Lost Vikings really suffered from that.
One of the things I miss about games from 20 years ago is having to aim your attacks if you want to hit anything, and simultaneously having to dodge mobs if you want to survive. Most recent computer games seem to have abandoned that, or if they do make you aim, it's a first person shooter with a camera view that doesn't let you see what's going on well enough to make a decent game of it. The Zelda games were perhaps the best at it, but some others such as Crystalis were pretty good at it, too. Does Twilight Princess eventually get some decent combat? And if so, why do they try so hard to hide it from new players?
The only new online computer game I've found in the last eight years or so with anything remotely similar to that sort of combat is The Chronicles of Spellborn, which I decided needed more time for the player distribution to stablize and some more content to be added. I gave up on consoles years ago when they went to the fancy 3D graphics that didn't let you see what was going on very well, and looked rather dumb, anyway. The graphics have greatly improved since then, so 3D looks just fine now (as opposed to games like StarFox, where the point of the game was to show off the fancy 3D graphics that were absolutely hideous), and some games (e.g., Guild Wars) have figured out how to have 3D graphics still give the player a good view of the action, but so far, Twilight Princess doesn't seem to be one of them.
And no, I' not familiar with the "50 floors of fights with difficult enemies". None of the earlier Zelda games I've played had anything that remotely fit that description. It was always, you beat the game, there's the ending, and that's it. In Zelda 1, that unlocked the second quest, so I guess finishing the second quest was the only "real" ending. In Zelda 2, it reset your game, but let you keep max experience levels. In A Link to the Past, starting a saved game after beating it would start you right outside Ganon for the final battle to beat the game again. I don't remember how Link's Awakening went, but I think it was something close to that. Quizzical 22:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've played those, but they are old games... :p It was introduced in Wind Waker, and seeing as it's a popular thing I'm sure they will continue to include them.
There are some fairly difficult enemies later on in the game. You can't just run up to them and slash them to death, or shoot them with the bow, or whatever. One example: one type of enemy requires you to shoot them with a Bomb Arrow (remember that bug from Link's Awakening? Great homage), and then either quickly kill them with the sword or shoot another Bomb Arrow for a kill. But, you can't usually just lock on and fire...not only will they attack you in melee, but they can throw projectiles from a good distance, too. Admittedly, you can try to overpower them by repeated whacking away, but you're likely to lose excessive hearts doing that, and they are rarely alone. Some other enemies come armed with shields and their own choice of weapon, and some are even armored; they fight much the same way you do, and so you've got to outmaneuver them or waste a lot of time and ammunition trying for ranged kills. There are certain times when you'll fight Twili (things from the shadow world); some of these fights get quite difficult, as they must all be killed at the same time or they will resurrect infinitely.
Oh, and the (two? three? I forget) storyline horseback battles are pretty difficult. You would probably appreciate them. Entropy Entropy Sig 2.jpg (C) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tl,dr (actually just too lazy, I'll do it some other time). My opinion: Midna in TP in her original form. Anyone else saw Link drool? (after she said "What? Say something! Am I so beautiful that you have no words left?")--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Early Wintersday[edit source]

You can have the Mini Koss, Mini Cloudtouched Simian, and Mini Ooze for free, though I won't be around to reject payment should you decide to do so. ;) Entropy Entropy Sig 2.jpg (C) 00:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Choose your champion[edit source]

The battle will be long, and bloody. Giga's God-King Salad Magic Card.jpg--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ 08:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Planeswalkers are so overpowered. Thank you :) --Shadowcrest 17:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, pickmepickmepickme! I want a gigacard! I haven't got a clue what over half of the effects are, but who gives a damn? :P --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We interrupt your normally scheduled spam period for an advertisement.[edit source]

GO SIGN UP FOR MY CONTEST. It's on my main page. That is all.--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 04:01, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Hey[edit source]

I noticed on your chart of minipets that you don't yet have a nornbear. I have one, but my monument's filled out and I'm sick of carrying around all of my minis. I also have a Palawa Joko, but it's dedicated. Would you like one or both of them? Slypher the executive director 21:59, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

...people still look at my userpage? O_O
I may have an incoming Roaring Ether + Nornbear from a friend sometime soon (says she doesn't want them), and I'm running out of storage too so I'll have to decline the Palawa. Thank you though :3 Shadowcrest 13:42, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
After having checked, I also have a raptor I could give you. Ive done a bit of rearranging in my storage, so I dont need the space as much as before. Reject me if you want to, but its your loss :D Slypher the executive director 02:44, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
I can use the Raptor, if you're willing to give it up. Also, I could technically take the Nornbear, but I'd feel bad just taking it and reselling it, so... you can keep that one :P Shadowcrest 19:12, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
I already have a dedicated raptor, so I have zero use for the other one. In fact, it has negative value to me (Takes up storage space). PLEASE take it :D. My IGN is kanaxai doombringer, and I'm on almost all day on weekends (I usually play 10-14 hour sessions). Just PM me and ask for teh raptor, and ill find you as soon as I'm not busy Slypher the executive director 01:19, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Wintersday[edit source]

Have a happy and a merry!   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:08, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

You too :)
(PS. - I am far more easily contacted here :P ) Shadowcrest 02:39, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
Aha! I forget that not every GWiki userID = GWW userID.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:39, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
Crystal Snowflake.png Merry X-mas!!! Crystal Snowflake.png -- F1Sig.png † F1© Talk 09:06, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
thank you F1 :) Shadowcrest 02:38, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit source]

Happy New Year! -- F1Sig.png † F1© Talk 11:18, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, happy new year to you too :) Shadowcrest 20:40, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

This is not a spam pyramid - everyone go away - kthx[edit source]

Hi. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 12:53, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Too late! :P --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 14:47, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
Omg -- F1Sig.png † F1© Talk 15:05, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

As the previous header, but then better because I'm starting this new section because I just wanted to say this:[edit source]

IT'S YOUR BIRHTDAY!!!!!11!!!!!1!! CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!1! Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 10:15, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

*Breaks out the Popemobile* --Gimmethegepgun 12:37, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
Happy birthday. Oh, and Arnout, you're getting unoriginal. Find a better one next time, you're running out of decent ideas.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 15:26, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
Handy brithday Felix Omni Signature.png 15:28, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
Happy birthday :D --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 16:58, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks you guys :D Shadowcrest 18:45, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
Birthday Cupcake.pngHappy Birthday to you!Birthday Cupcake.png


-- F1Sig.png † F1© Talk 18:35, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit source]

You have won a door prize in the Create-A-Card contest!--Łô√ë Ho ho ho!îğá†ħŕášħ 09:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ridiculous shit[edit source]

Calling my writing "ridiculous shit" offends me. Calling it "unnecessary" offends me. Calling the 50% scrollbar I caused by not cutting line breaks fine enough on Oasis where they caused no scrollbar "ridiculous" offends me. Do you really have to make your points in a "reasonable" discussion like that, or are those epithets in fact "unnecessary"? You decide. --◄mendel► 08:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, your talkpage being centered is disruptive. It's too difficult to tell where ones comments starts and who it replying to.--Łô√ë Ho ho ho!îğá†ħŕášħ 08:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Jeez Giga... Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 08:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The centered page was a result of the archivebox. I had to remove the outside center tags, apparently they're deprecated or something. Felix Omni Signature.png 08:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
If you don't feel writing 8000 characters of pi is unnecessary, then those epithets are indeed necessary. I am also willing to bet you didn't calculate those thousands of digits yourself, and thus it's probably not "your writing" in the first place. And finally, yes, we have historically removed stuff exactly like your header-- see [1] (spam pyramid template, which was removed from multiple talk pages and then deleted), [2] (same deal), [3]... etc etc. Shadowcrest 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
1) Eight thousand digits of pi is not a spam pyramid.
2) Pi is common knowledge as far as copyright goes (unless you'd like to claim that math itself is copyrighted knowledge, I'd love to see you defend that argument.)
2.1) As it is not spam (read: excessively long single-edit post is not spam) it is not "exactly the same. It is also not "exactly like..." because it could be categorized as a mathematical equation, which (unless you were generating a spam pyramid because you wanted to count to lines or do trig on them or something) is not the same deal.
3) It spanned one page, therefore the last three links are redundant.
Don't throw out random links that don't matter into a discussion, please. — Scythe 1:26, 8 Dec 2010 (UTC)
Quick refutation of 2.1: yes, an excessively long single edit can be considered spam when it has no meaningful content. Mendel's header held no content that was meaningful to the point he was making - it was the length of the content, not the content itself, that was meaningful. That is why I felt that editing it down from 8000 to 300 characters was an acceptable compromise - it was still long enough to suit mendel's point without being disruptive/spammy. Yes, it was disruptive - what do you call all this drama if not a disruption?Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 01:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I find this E-peen contest that is really getting nowhere several times more disruptive than the initial edit. a ToC would easily make it navigable and end any possible disruption (to an extent, I use ToCs though some people may scroll). This would (will?) go away once enough crap lands on my talk to force me to archive + stylize it so I don't have an ugly archive box, tbh imho. — Scythe 2:06, 8 Dec 2010 (UTC)
I note that Shadowcrest has succeeded in bringing the admin noticeboard discussion over here, by bringing up points I made over there. I am going to copy the relevant parts back there and ask you to reply there as regards the header deletion. I made this section to address the language Shadowcrest used, and my reply here will be concerned with his reaction to that.
If you don't feel writing 8000 characters of pi is unnecessary, then those epithets are indeed necessary. I am also willing to bet you didn't calculate those thousands of digits yourself, and thus it's probably not "your writing" in the first place.
Firstly, if you do not understand why I chose to post 8000 characters of pi, calling it "ridiculous" will not help you understand, and to decry something you do not understand reflects badly on you in my eyes. The fact that you did not even ask me means you do not want to understand, and that reflects badly on you in my eyes. π is in the public domain; to select a certain length of it and post it is a creative decision on my part, and thus I do consider it "my" writing. I posted pi there to make a point - my point.
I am stunned that your defense consists of saying "somebody does not realize something he does is unnessary, hence it is ok to ridicule him". This is logic one would expect schoolyard bullies to employ, and up to this point I trusted GuildWiki admins to not. --◄mendel► 02:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
As a neutral third party, that is the worst logic I have ever seen from you, mendel. When you do something retarded like posting 8000 characters in a section header, expect it to be reverted - if not in full, in part. The fact that you don't see the ridiculousness of 8000 characters of pi is far more disturbing than someone calling it what it is - ridiculous shit. If you had typed out an 8000 character post and someone paraphrased it over your post, you would have an argument here; but you didn't, and you don't. Even PvXers know that posting stupid shit leads to shit getting removed or deleted; they just don't delude themselves into thinking their shitty posts are worth keeping.
There are some edits that toe the line between a bad idea and a stupid one, and more edits still that toe the line between stupid and "ridiculous shit." 8000 characters in a section header is off the deep end. It's unfortunate that you think so much of your own edits that you are unable or unwilling to admit fault behind such a ridiculous edit. It's more unfortunate still that, after all of this, you find it fitting to come onto Shadowcrest's talk page and call him (indirectly, of course - we must observe the civilities) capable of logic no greater than that of a schoolyard bully.
If I had been a sysop, I would have banned you for your actions, mendel. A disruptive post on a user talk page followed by shitty defenses and false logic and thinly veiled personal attacks against a user who called out your edit for what it was - that is unacceptable behavior for a bureaucrat. Decide what your goal on the wiki is, mendel, and follow that goal - don't disrupt the wiki to make a point. If you think your recent actions have been anything more than that, take a few days off from the wiki and contemplate the effect your attitude and posts have had. -Auron 11:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Scythe[edit source]

Out of curiosity, if I had asked you four days ago to kindly revert yourself on this edit, would you have done it? --◄mendel► 15:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Pending discussion? Perhaps. Because I "hurt your feelings"? Absolutely not. It's not like I took what you wrote and changed it to a slew of personal attacks-- if you are offended by people shortening an excessively long header that you copied+pasted from somewhere, you need to grow a thicker skin. Shadowcrest 20:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt and straightforward reply. You still misunderstood why your edit offends me, but no matter. --◄mendel► 22:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Feedback[edit source]

Hello! I want to thank you for everything you have done for the Guild Wiki. Allow me to introduce myself. I am Tesla, a wiki manager for Curse. The reason I am posting on your talk page is for some feedback. I was hoping you could tell me if there was something you would like to see on the wiki or if you think there is something we could do to help improve the quality of our service to the community. If you have any ideas at all, please feel free to stop by on my talk page and leave me your thoughts. Thank you! Tesla 03:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)