User talk:Suicidal Tendencie/Archive 2

No spam

 * FIRST! Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 12:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or are you? *mysterious music* --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 12:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Needz more SPAM! I am first right? Atleast its spam. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 12:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * S
 * P
 * A
 * M --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 12:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * SPAM, spam, I'm Spamming in the rain. All I want is Spam, All I do is trolling. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 13:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)All you want is spam? I've never had it but don't imagine it would be that tasty. Consider chicken pie and/or cookies. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 13:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Chicken pie? I dont think I know what you mean. In the Netherlands we dont have something like that. But I like cookies. Still the spamming bussiness is really cool. Your new talkpage is coming along just fine. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 13:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No Spam --El_Nazgir 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm... I've a PvE with every primary
And can only afford one pair. And it's not going on my Monk.

Who gets the Chaos Gloves? :P I'm thinkin' Rit atm --> Suicidal Tendencie 15:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, take the char you play the most? logic?--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, there isn't one? Obvious? --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, Mesmers have the smallest chaos gloves, but they look best with monks? Opinion?--Alc ^^  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's not going on my Monk. ^ ^ Probably going on Rit tbh --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Take elite luxon armor with that. And dye green. :) --Alc ^^  17:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do like Elite Luxon, but don't like lots of black... ash or whatever that is with chaos gloves :P I dunno, mebbe --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 18:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Noone; they suck <3 --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  16:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, I like 'em. However I don't like the idea of spending all that money on a character which I, almost certainly, will play no more than I did before getting them. I'll probably spend the money on my Necro's armor. (I'd spend it on a BDS, but doing SoO with a mate constantly, one day I'll get the bloody thing...) --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And it'll turn out to be... Communing... RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hahah, go figure. I've been tagging along with an ex-guildie of mine, and we were joking about Communing BDS's too :) Communing is so hated. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  12:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are the ones you give to your permasin. :) RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh, rather to my ele; need a universal HCT/HSR staff :P Might as well look cool. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Stop staring at that widget and get the real RecentChanges. RoseOfKali 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yo
So I notice that there was a bit of a misunderstanding under us on IRC. So just wanted to clear stuff out :P That you won't get dragged into that Sims wiki thing. That was all right? Well hope to hear from you soon or something like that xD --   † F1 ©  08:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So... Warwick? --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wat? &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Was wondering who told him. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 14:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem then?? -- [[Image:F4Sig.jpg|19px]]  † F1 ©  14:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I did make it clear I was trying to lay low somewhat and did not want more people knowing my name as I've had wikidrama problems and, as I said, wanted to lay low.
 * The fact that you ignored my wishes is a problem for me, certainly, and I'm also bemused at the person who most likely told you. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 14:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * o_O" Right sry. Didn't know It was that of a deal. Just asked your name on IRC so I could find out what I did wrong but.... nvm then.... :( -- [[Image:F4Sig.jpg|19px]]  † F1 ©  14:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ? Did wrong?
 * To be honest with you, besides going out of your way to ignore my wishes, I can't think of anything you did wrong. You spent hours on our IRC telling us all about the SimsWiki, which is more unfortunate than wrong.
 * I am rather amused that the greatest wrong in my eyes you committed worrying about something ultimately irrelevant. Annoying at the time, but soon forgotten. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 21:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You knew this was coming...
Image copyright problem Thank you for uploading your images. GuildWiki takes copyright very seriously, and the images you have supplied may be missing information on its copyright status. The images will be deleted after 7 days, unless the copyright status is determined for the license and the source of the images. Please review Image use policy and add a copyright tag to their image description page.

Please browse through your images and correctly tag them. Further details can be found at Image license guide.

Your uploaded image history can be found here.

Thank you for your cooperation. -- GuildWiki Community

-- ◄mendel► 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No I did not, actually.
 * The "event" is over, so unless you would personally prefer I dig up the info for the /vandalized page, I'll stand by and allow them to be deleted. If you'd prefer them to stay, please let me know as soon as is convenient, as it will take some time. (I also took one of them, and no idea what to choose for that).
 * And I feel lazy now... I would do it myself, but to the best of my knowledge I don't have the right, minus a ban tag, which does not really reduce the effort on your part. And your section header disappoints me Mendel. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 21:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just looked at them, no I did not, thinking of something else.
 * Didn't take one, so no complication there. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 21:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars competitive xunlai tournament house

 * Making Changes

If you wish to make changes to your existing predictions, simply log in and go to your prediction page again. You March make any changes you wish to your top 8 prediction. Once you've finished editing your predictions click the Save My Predictions button. You can return to make changes to your predictions at any time before 15:00 GMT on March 28th for GvG & 15:00 GMT on March 29th for 1v1.

You March make? I presume that used to say may make and someone got confused... --> Suicidal Tendencie 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol... Engrish.com I also don't have the "Save predictions" button. O_o I guess we're not allowed to save yet? RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 18:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you can, I have, perhaps you didn't log in again? :S
 * @ Mendel + Ishy, why do I keep ECing myself lately? =/ --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 19:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a pun on the month May, of course! --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  19:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes... not like ArenaNerf ever make mistakes... that IS a pun --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 19:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I logged in, you can't even get to there if you're not... RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to spam
Your request for spam has been audited, and a seal has been generated for your use Random Time  18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * pfft, I don't get the point
 * please observe the stamp immediately below my request, I can haz spamspam now --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 18:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I do like the pic in it =) --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 19:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Most what?
Scorpion Wire is by far one of the most skills in Guild Wars. RoseOfKali  02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Entropy About halfway down, labeled Funny Scorpion Wire Story.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Roar.]]îğá†ħŕášħ  02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 03:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanx Giga :P --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

uuuhm
I hope you realize that wasn't me. I wouldn't even do something that stupid when I'm drunk. Lol signing my own vandalizing, that would be pretty stupid. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Arnout, you need to think things through, mate. I changed it by looking at the edit history. The edit history shows who does what. =) --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, and he didn't even do it right. :P Silly noob... vandalism is for pros!

RoseOfKali 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can log out and use my IP adress. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 80.60.239.64 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL ^^ RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Arnout, I believe you 2) Arnout: proxies 3) Rose - huh? --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Mine, my credit, mine! :O
 * I laughed at Arnout still trying to prove that it wasn't his IP. :P "Silly rabbit... Trix are for kids?" And that's a painfully bright userbox, but you vandalized Mendels page "well," while the IP didn't even complete the link tags. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but im running wiki from 3 differrent IP's. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 08:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I typed the comment above this on at school (the whole school has one IP adress I believe), and now I'm typing this at home. At home, I have 2 different IP's because our pc's aren't linked. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you were logged out and signed, the signature would not show your name. -- ◄mendel► 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, how do you know he didn't go as far as typing out his entire signature and timestamp (and missing the opening brackets, cus he's just such a crazy noob)? :P RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 05:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the signature was already on the page (including teh timestamp), so he didn't need to type it? -- ◄mendel► 09:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, this always happens here...
 * On my talk page we're talking about Arnout's IP's
 * On Mendel's talkpage, in the section about the new userbox I made, people were talking about Dr. Ishy and his wifey... we're organized :O --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 13:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mendel: why are you trying to give a logical explanation to an irrational vandalism?
 * ST: Mendel edited my indent on YOUR talkpage... :*( RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you asked.
 * Was that wrong? -- ◄mendel► 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for a logical explanation, I didn't think there was one. :P
 * No, it was just somewhat related to my talkpage. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Suicidal talk
I like you. That's why I'm telling you something you won't be pleased to hear. The wiki isn't a "spoken" medium, but rather a written one. In chat, you write quickly, off the cuff, and what you write doesn't matter much outside the situation it was in. What you write on the wiki stays (potentially) forever; it will be read hours later by people who don't understand your situation, and they expect you to have spent the care on it that the written word deserves. This means that your tendency to reply quickly and emotionally is suicidal in the context of the wiki: people who assume you considered what you wrote will think you stupid and worse. (You're by far not the only person who does this, Rose has developed a very similar tendency, and there are others, too). Please heed the advice I just posted to GW:STUPID. -- ◄mendel► 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence interests me to no end, although I think that may be more suited to IRC. Please explain to me what talkpages are for, Mendel.
 * I want to make a point very clear: I am not being sarcastic. Frankly, as it stands, I have no clue why talkpages exist for users, and I always trust your guidance. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 15:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I did want to avoid saying this, but I am becoming increasingly angry at this site as an entity. I do consider what I say, to varying degrees. Perhaps others should consider the fact I welcomed him to this site, perhaps that I was the only one talking on his talkpage at least suggested I happen to know the man.
 * And, with that bit of common sense injected into the situation, perhaps people when deciding if they should post or not (and thereby, it would appear, deciding if I will be creating wiki drama or not) should bear that in mind. One user was posting on a fellow wik- user's talkpage. I REFUSE to accept the blame for other people deciding to join in. I was talking with my friend both here and on MSN. That other  people decided to stick their  unwanted  noses in to the matter is NOT my decision, and thus I will NOT accept liability for it.
 * All I've been told here is that it's not a social networking site. I would beg people to ask themselves
 * 1) What are user talk pages invariably used for at least half of the time and
 * 2) Why is it just me that half the site turn their attentions to?
 * I apologize Mendel. I have let you down, I doubt that you like me, as you do not know me. You should consider my very strong feelings on this matter more as then you will understand me so much more.--> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Have you read the section on shouting matches on GW:STUPID? It should explain succinctly what talkpages are not for. And the answer to your question is exactly what I am hoping to write down on GW:STUPID -- that is my plan that Entropy and you claim is so hard to understand. ;-) -- ◄mendel► 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Mendel, but I consider your response to be totally inaccurate. I will not accept a proposed policy as evidence I have done something wrong. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki. People can stick their noses wherever they damn well please. How were we to know that you weren't simply antagonizing a new user? It's a wiki, if you want to get people to keep their noses out of where they're not wanted, say it on a private location. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument is done. Don't discuss it further. -- ◄mendel► 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suicidal, get a break and be less dense. I have asked you to heed the advice on that page, I have not told you that you have done wrong: if that had been the case, you would be blocked now for not heeding that. In fact, on your user page you state "I did nothing wrong" (or not much anyway) and at the same time express surprise that you weren't blocked for doing nothing wrong. Maybe the wiki works the way it should for you? And random people have a right to voice opinions that annoy you? And you shouldn't fly into a rage about that, but rather consider whether they deserve an answer, and if so, which one? If you cannot do that, your discussion style will get you in trouble again and again, and by your userpage edit you have confirmed my prediction that it will eventually prove "wikicidal", i.e. that you will remove yourself from the wiki on your own. I would rather that did not happen. Stop and think, goddammit, and then stop again and think some more. -- ◄mendel► 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * be less dense: wow thanks
 * ...and at the same time expect surprise that you weren't blocked...: take your own advice. Think again. My original intention was to post a few messages on the TalkPage belonging to a friend of mine. That was not the net result. I do not, surely, deserve anything for my original intention? As what I had planned to do came to completion, I fully credit the escalation to all else concerned, and couldn't care less about how ignorant it sounds that I blame everyone but me and of course Optime Doom + El Nazgir . While the end result was not what I intended, it was what I got judged on, what I got blamed for, and what I expected to be banned for.
 * ...random people... fly into rage...: well, I just joined in. Everyone else seemed angry enough at me so I don't see the significance of my fury when I wasn't the only involved person who was pissed off at some stage or another. I do not have a problem with other people editing TalkPages. I have a problem with them doing it when I had not planned on it ONLY FOR THEIR EDITING TO BE CLASSED AS WIKI DRAMA WHICH IS MY FAULT AND MY FAULT ALONE'.
 * ...that you will remove yourself from the wiki on your own: I have every intention of doing this. I have been annoyed at the userbase before and come back, deciding to ignore those who annoy me and repay my debt to those other contributers who helped me when I was a noob. Fuck that.
 * Don't you see what incenses me so? Even now Warwick is spamming 'No' on my TalkPage. I see nobody on her TalkPage attempting to stop her. We all feel bad for OptimeDoom, because archiving your TalkPage is suddenly humiliating (?!?) but nobody gives a shit about me? Consider being fair sometime in the future.
 * I would rather that did not happen.: believe it or not, I do appreciate the sentiment, but it is far too little far too late from far too few. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Everyone else seemed angry enough at me so I don't see the significance of my fury &mdash; the significance of your fury is that it keeps the anger (and the drama) fueled.

If you have a look at the history of Optime Doom's talk on March 12th alone, you can imagine what would have happened had you postponed replying for a day (or even an hour each); even more so as people reacted to you keeping raging. (Actually, look at Talk:Acorns; that was drama I unintentionally caused, and imagine what would have happened had I rebutted everyone who disagreed with me! Even so, people remembered that one for a looong time, and blamed me for it.) And this is El Nazgir's talk. Btw, at 18:38 this is me advising you to take a break for an hour. The irony is that what began with a Piplup spam to a friend's userpage ends with you taking offense to your own page getting spammed. :-P -- ◄mendel► 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The irony is that it is not ironic and you seemingly fail to understand what is going on at the most basic side of the situation.
 * I was showing something to my friend, not spamming really, I left two (!) messages on his TalkPage, nothing excessive, and the picture was, honestly, to show him. That Warwick, far from being a friend of mine, started rubbing salt in the wound, is immeasureably different. I am most disappointed that you, of all people, seem to have trouble comprehending what came to pass. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 21:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi.
No. &mdash; Warw/Wick 16:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh look, someone who's not me. Please be prepared to not have anyone give a shit you used my talkpage for no obvious reason whatsoever. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that once again may well qualify as spamming my talkpage. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nyet. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Generhande. -- ◄mendel► 16:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm being spammed and nobody gives a shit, fuck the lot of you for being inconsistant assholes. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam is spam, and will eventually be dealt with (once it accumulates enough). And what do you do about mail/e-mail spam? Ignore it/shuffle it away. Oh, and keep this in mind
 * --JonTheMon 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * --JonTheMon 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello.
You have been blocked for 1 day for NPA. Calling someone a blatant asshole is, in fact, a personal attack. In addition to this, I believe that you need a break from the wiki. You are getting emotional over trivial matters, and indeed taking offence from somone offering you advice as to what to do in a situation. I understand that you are going to leave this wiki, however if you wish to continue editing after your block period is up, I would like to inform you that I, and I assume the rest of the wiki, do not in fact hate you, and that you are welcome to continue editing.. You can appeal your ban to either me, or another admin if you believe that I am bias against you. This is not Warwick-the-person-who-was-trolling-you, this is Warwick the impartial admin. I would also like to say that if anyone else disagrees with this ban, admin or no, please speak up your viewpoints. Thank you. &mdash; Warw/Wick 17:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * that is probably one of the worst decisions ever -- Mini Me ↔  Talk  23:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Voting for hitler. Lord of all tyria 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mini Me, actual arguments would be appreciated. The way it is now, both ST and Warwick get a day off, and that doesn't look so bad to me. -- ◄mendel► 23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine if you're a proponent of the ends justifying the means. Warwick banned for an NPA directed toward herself that she provoked, and we all know "good" sysops do not act in situations they are personally involved in (see Auron vs. various people, me vs. Lost-Blue and Warwick, etc). Futhermore, banning herself afterwards shows that either a) she did not have the confidence nor force of will to defend the ban, and so chose to be untouchable until the ban expired (a very sly but frankly underhanded tactic), or b) knew she had made a poor decision and somehow wanted to atone for it. Well obviously, two wrongs do not make a right, bans should not be punitive, etc, and this whole thing comes off as Warwick simply wanting the last word.


 * That being said, flaming people on your userpage is both discourteous and discouraged, and if any user had requested it be removed, or a sysop (including Warwick) had warned for GW:NPA, that would have been reasonable. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 05:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "People who are dicks on purpose just to piss you off *cough* ban" = asking for it, IMO; and while I would have preferred a warning, had I thought of it (which I didn't) and had I been online (which I wasn't), and I also would've liked for another sysop to have blocked, I didn't feel the need to shorten or lift the block. Warwick had the force of will to defend the ban, she was on irc throughout the evening, but she didn't need to. The ban wasn't punitive, either; because both could clearly use the break. -- ◄mendel► 10:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of what Felix said.
 * When you're a sysop you're not expected to troll, ESPECIALLY not when you know someone is already pissed off. ST flaming Warwick was to be expected, but generally, like Felix said, a sysop does not ban a user if it is a matter the sysop has been personally involved with. This does not only make the sysop look bad, but it also sends a bad message to new users who happen to stumble on this page. -- Mini Me ↔  Talk  08:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and felix said what I wanted to say about Warwick banning herself. -- Mini Me ↔  Talk  08:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mendel you didn't get any point we made. -- Mini Me ↔  Talk  19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The message this page sends is that if you bait users into insulting you, you get blocked. I think that it is ok to send that.
 * The point you made is that admins ought to be model citizens and behave themselves better than the rest of the editors. I do not accept this notion, because reversed it implies that it is ok for users who are not admins to behave themselves worse. Obviously that would not be a good policy. Admins are expected to use admin tools responsibly, hence my first reply was mainly concerned with whether Warwick had done so. I'm sure she's read what I wrote here, but if you want to, feel free to copy it over to her talkpage as well.
 * See also GW:ADMIN and User:M.mendel/Admin Criteria. -- ◄mendel► 20:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not implying that at all, actually.
 * What I meant was that it is generally not considered good admin behaviour to ban someone when you have been invloved in a personal discussion with that user. Just because the guidelines say it's allowed doesn't mean you should. Because, you see, it kind of sends a message that admins will ban people who disagree with them in any way, even though you and I know they don't. It would have been just as easy to inform a different sysop.
 * And obviously admins should behave in a polite manner towards other users. This does NOT imply that normal users can behave like complete assholes. If you don't understand this I somewhat doubt you're 100% fit for a sysop role. -- Mini Me ↔  Talk  20:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I read your admin criteria, and Warwick actually failed on 2 points: "help and support" and "conflict moderation". I know she has banned herself for that, so I won't make a point out of that. -- Mini Me ↔  Talk  20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Mini Me, you come from Guild Wars Wiki. Things work differently there. Here, policies are merely guidelines. Admins are actually able to block other users at will. What is keeping them in check is that in doing so they have to carry out community consensus. This is a bit tricky because at times the admin action will condense a community consensus around it that didn't exist before.

In this case, Suicidal Tendencie was clearly out of community consensus. He ignored several editors in good standing (whom, by his userpage, even he admitted he respected before this fracas) who were telling him one way or another he was on the wrong track. I even wrote a whole page with a detailed explanation of what he was doing and why it was bad. Suicidal Tendencie did not stop and change his attitude to one of learning, of trying to find out why everybody thought differently. He continued the confrontation to the point of insults that he openly admitted were against wiki rules, because he felt justified. This kind of righteous tantrum wasn't his first, by my count it was the third. It is not my opinion that the wiki can tolerate this indefinitely.

After the advice Suicidal had received by that point, after himself admitting he was breaking the rules, a block without further warning would, in my view, have been justified then and there. I think Warwick wanted to do that, but feared the discussion and drama this would engender. Hence a simple "No". This developed into a chance for her to block Suicidal Tendencie "on policy", even though it meant she had to ban herself and take the damage to her reputation.

My understanding of Warwick's action is that she intuitively perceived that a block was needed (and in that I agree, now). She didn't do it directly, the way she went about it was unfortunate in some ways, but she did it when we, who could have taken a more direct action and explained it better, were still struggling to understand what was going on. This difference is one of the reasons why I think she makes a good addition to our admin team.

Arnout, you think, below, that Suicidal Tendencie has been treated unfair. When I review the fracas here, on User Talk:Optime Doom and on User talk:El Nazgir, I conclude that he has received, in various ways, fair chances to turn around and give up his confrontational stance. Do you think that this kind of behaviour is acceptable or in any way beneficial to the wiki? That it should go unnoticed? What would fair treatment have been?

And on the other hand, how do you want me to treat Warwick? I believe that most of what I could tell her, she knows herself, but feel free to formulate your own admonishment. If you feel a more far-reaching admin action should be instigated against her, please make a case for it. What is it that you want? What course of action do YOU think fair? -- ◄mendel► 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually been on this wiki since before you came, though I kinda stopped contributing majorly. So I think I have a pretty good idea of how things work around here.
 * Also just because admins are allowed to ban people at will doesn't mean they should. It doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Sometimes it's just better to take a step back and let someone else carry out the ban. This would have been one of those times.
 * A simple "no" is not a good warning. And the way both you and Warwick continued to say simply "no" to ST was not very smart either. It would have been better to say "take a break" instead of just "no". -- Mini Me ↔  Talk  11:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at Special:Contributions/Mini Me and concluded you were new here. You've not adressed the points I made, but instead repeated your old ones. And if you think I didn't say "take a break" you weren't paying attention. -- ◄mendel► 11:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guessed you did. It's not very weird to assume that. I've had 3 accounts I think.
 * If you did tell ST to take a break, I apologise for missing that. It's easy to miss something when stuff is spread out.
 * All the points you made have little to do with mine. I did not actually say ST should not have been banned, what I meant was that, at the time, Warwick was not the right person to carry out the ban. You seem to somewhat agree with this.
 * Warwick does not need any punishment, she has banned herself. -- Mini Me ↔  Talk  17:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I Apologise
Although perhaps you might not think I'm the one to blame or anything, I feel at least partially responsable. I was the first to, as you called it, stick my unwanted nose in to the matter. I feel bad that I started the whole thing by jokingly calling you an arse. I consider you as a friend, and I don't want to lose you because of some stupid wikidrama.

Also, a general note to everybody exept perhaps Mendel, who has already told you, but I believe it applies to everyone in the whole discussion: '''Calm Down! This has gotten way out of hand for such a small matter.'''

Next point, I believe the ban was unfair: first there is a heated discussiong in which Warwick also took part, then warwick provokes the already angry Suicidal who had been on the edge but didn't burst yet. The provocation causes Suicidal to finally "explode" and he insults someone who, seeing the situation, knew damn-well it would happen if she did what she did. (but I'm not quite sure what Mendel was doing there. Was that a spam too?)--El_Nazgir 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, spam cascades are our initiation rite. You'll find them all over the wiki on pages of popular users. -- ◄mendel► 21:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do take that back. You have nothing to be sorry for.
 * I said that people stuck their unwanted noses in, largely referring to JonTheMon, but not him alone. I did not, however, refer to you. You'll notice I added links to people, I did not link to you.
 * What really got me was that I posted two messages jokingly on the TalkPage of a mate. I had no problem whatsoever with another friend of mine joining in.
 * But JonTheMon in particular, with others, forced me on the defensive for perfectly reasonable and acceptable joking with a friend who was not in the least angry or upset. I kept responding to them, as they made me feel unfairly, from my point of view that I had to justify my actions. And, responding to them, was what caused more problems, with people crying about RC.
 * Keeping to the theme, Warwick kept picking at a scab. That the ban was allowed to remain not only shows the other admins agreed with the ban; it was more and worse than that. By allowing the ban to go ahead shows they agree Warwick had a right to get involved in an Admin capacity. That indifference from the other admins disgusted me - it still does. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 20:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering I said something only once on said page and was later linked, I think you're still mad at me for not letting you call me "Jinkie." XD Jink  20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it was just that I was communcating with a friend of mine which JonTheMon, and yourself, made me feel like I had no right to do. I may add the argument against me if flawed. Generally people are proud to archive their TalkPage, so how the hell was he ever seen as a victim? --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, part of the huge misunderstanding was that... no one knew that Optime Doom was your friend at first, so it seemed like a jerkish thing to say, especially followed up with El Nazgir's comment (which has already been discussed and taken care of), then it became an RC spam issue and just kept snowballing from there. You say that you felt that JonTheMon's comment made you feel like you weren't being allowed to communicate with a friend, but really you weren't talking with Optime Doom  by that point - you were communicating with the entire site, or at the least the ones that felt they had something to say.  That's the problem with a public wiki such as this: everyone can see what you're communicating and can leave their own 2, 3, 100 cents about it.
 * If Optime Doom could have hopped in a bit earlier and said, "nah, it's okay" or even "lol" (like you mentioned his response in MSN had been), or if you could have hopped onto IRC sooner to discuss the issue, I'd imagine this whole stupid mess could have been avoided in the first place. Then again, maybe not - humans seem to thrive on conflict. For example, my entire comment is offered as someone else's viewpoint for you to consider (as JonTheMon's had been), but you might see it in a completely different light.
 * I do agree that Warwick baited you so she could ban you, but she knew if she kept pushing the buttons long enough, she'd get you to snap. Sometimes it's better not to feed the trolls and watch them starve (*points to the box above*).
 * Anyway, I don't expect this to go anywhere other than in circles (as it keeps doing, rather like a perpetual motion device). If you'd like to continue talking about it with me, leave a note on my talkpage and I could hop onto IRC sometime. Otherwise, I leave you with a cookie and wishes for a better day. Jink  20:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I also apologize for the massive wall of text. Jink  20:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, first things first, I apologize.
 * Eveidentally your point of view is not what I took for granted.
 * WoTs are nothing to apologize for, if they were, Mendel would have been banned early on and none of us would have heard of him, but look at him now =) I mean that he's an admin, a BCrat, and whatnot, not that he's stopped producing WoTs, we all know he never will
 * I'm not sure you've read everything I've said. ...part of the misunderstanding is that we didn't know OptimeDoom was your friend... yes, I can understand that, but no more. As I have pointed out before, generally if people archive their TalkPage, people congratulate them and pop in to say hi, they don't mock them and make them feel ashamed. If he did archive, please explain to me what harm would have been served. At worst I was being random more than anything else, at best I was doing no harm.
 * I would like to make the point I know I did wrong in regard to you; I should have made time to clarify your point of view instead of instantly summoning a grudge. I was feeling defensive, and I saw your comment as another uncalled for attack, I'm sorry.
 * I appreciate your comment on Warwick. I would hope that her Sysop status would be revoked, or at the very least questioned, when people look at this and notice that it is not unusual for her in anyway, and that she never should have been promoted. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 21:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if I had missed stuff you've written, as I don't really lurk here except every so often, and I forget about checking the history of a page. (Did it several times on this one actually, and I'm probably still not catching everything.)  Anyhoo, I don't want to drag this through the muck any more, so I'll just say good luck and whatnot!  Jink  05:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sup
Guild wars! Lord of all tyria 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ^spam --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

GW:NPA
Warwick has taken offense to the last two sections on your userpage. Could you please express your displeasure in a les insulting way? -- ◄mendel► 20:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will be lurking around, checking my TalkPage in case anyone wishes to contact me. But all in all, I have largely left the site. So being blocked shall affect me in the most minor of ways.
 * Warwick proved me correct, he provoked me, then kept picking at a scab, annoyed me on IRC, then proceeded to ban me.
 * As I consider it a fact more than an insult, please give me a reason to do so.
 * If you think I am correct or otherwise with the... suggestion... would also be something I would be happy to learn. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 20:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Warwick is a she, as far as I know. Just so she doesnt get more offended, and even worse things happen. I would like to say that in my eyes you are being treated unfair. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree, but besides Warwick (himself / herself / other), I am the most contaminated with bias =/ --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 20:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Things I want to say
I would like to say first of all that I have a tremendous respect for the site as an entity. It's exceptionally unfortunate that something so great also has users which annoy me to such an extreme.

However, I can't help but feel that this must be my failing. As other people have been here so long, and remain, it is clear that I am leaving shows a character flaw or several which mean(s) that I simply don't belong here. Which I do see as a pity (for me - not being full of myself here).


 * Dr. Ishmael: Yeah, you're one person I don't expect to see / care about this. But I would like to say that you always seem cool headed, you consider your words carefully, and you are a great asset to this site.


 * El Nazgir: Thank you. You have been a loyal friend, and I have enjoyed having mini- debates with you. You are a good person who has a point of view, which is explained well, but not put above what others think. Unfortunately this is a minority in the current userbase, as far as I can see. I would hate to think leaving this site means leaving everyone who sticks by it; if you wish to, I would love it if you add I Use S T D Curses to your Friends list and give me a shout sometime.


 * Entropy: Haha, of all the people least likely to read / care about this, you must be the one. And yet, here I am, oh well.


 * I was unfair to you, and I have apologized for that before. I do so once again. That you held such respect and faith, for so long, says more than I think you currently give it credit for. And I'm disappointed in some respects; had you chosen to, I do not doubt you could have rallied the old support once again. Perhaps that would have been good for the site. Perhaps it would have been bad, perhaps it would make little difference. I guess we will never know.


 * Felix Omni: The first thing that comes to mind is I owe you an apology. I did get emotional about the Elite Luxon Mesmer armor... incident. It was quite a while after that I saw I had taken it to heart far too much, what was probably just a joke, maybe even meant to help me feel welcome, I could only see / take one way. I know you much better now; and know whatever your intent, you were not mocking me. So I'm sorry.


 * You have defended me when you had no reason to, other than your believe I was right, or at least not overly long, and I appreciate it. I may well have a reputation for often singing Mendel's praises, however, if I could choose one user which is the... healthiest for the Wiki, I would pick you.


 * Also, while you have never really specified, I can only assume as a result of me not really standing out to you you have often seemed like a friend to me; and I thank you for it, intended or otherwise.


 * Mendel: You have been a good friend to me, and I thank you for it. You are eternally willing to help new users, which makes them infinately more likely to stay as active contributers, and you should be commended for it. Everyone knows this is good for the site. Few have the patience to do so, however.


 * Please don't be disappointed by how short this is, you already know how much I respect you; and making this longer would only serve to make me repeat myself.


 * OptimeDoom: Meh, more than anyone else, I'm convinced you'll never wander over here. Talk to ya IG or on MSN / GWW. =)


 * PanSola: Another person who almost certainly will never see this, but you do strike me as a person who considers what they say very carefully, and who I do not see ever pulling rank on anyone, or for that point, making anyone feel unwelcome. Other people do not always manage to avoid these things, unfortunately.


 * Vipermagi: Personally, I feel the site would benefit greatly from you being a BCrat. You're an approachable person, who, once again, can remain cool headed. You don't offend other users, and you can be relied upon to make logicable decisions.


 * --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 23:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ..I can? Also, if I get RFBC'd (?) I'd turn it down. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  23:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been saying Viper for bcrat since Biro left :| &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Then the site will suffer, or, to be more accurate, the site will not gain. But this is of course your decision accepting it if it happens if it exists in this way --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 23:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, so we finally agree on something, Warwick. Ironic timing, is it not?


 * Simplified reason (and left out something which I don't want to discuss, ever, so don't bother): There's no use in me being a BCrat; I'd be just as active, and do just as much. A BCrat can appoint other sysops. I won't do that (I like to see reactions to things I do just a little too much). --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you're looking at it out of context a little. I said that, in my opinion, of course, you would be good at that. As I am leaving behind messages to people, it was as much me summing up my thoughts on you as a user as it was a serious recommendation. In fact more. If you wanted to be a BCrat, it'd be up to you to say so. I was complimenting your personality, mostly You would be good at it, regardless of if you want to be one or not --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 23:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll put this the best way I can
No. I don't hate you. I don't have a vendetta or anything at all against you. I sheerly don't like the attitude you take, and I don't think many people like it. No, my ban was not actually unjustified. If it was, someone would have revoked it. The NPA was a side reason, the main reason for the ban was the fact that you were clearly getting overly emotional about the topic. Note that I also banned myself for baiting you, for an equal period of time that I banned you for. You seem to take, when confronted, an automatic "superior" attitude against the other person, even when the other person is joking. You also seem to have a problem separating a joke from an insult. For instance, El Nazgir calling you an ass. When I read it, I could clearly tell it was intended in jest. Then, when he told you, after you confronted him on his talkpage, that it was a joke, you (In my eyes) somewhat rudely told him to reply on your friend's talkpage. This is a public wiki. Talkpages are public. But I digress: Your attitude is not acceptable for this wiki. Please change it, or at least try to mask your true feelings. This is the internet. It's not hard.

We've all had our emo moments when we've wanted to quit, but the wiki eventually drags us back. If you stay gone, goodbye. If you return, as many of us woeful editors have, I will welcome you back. As I stated, I don't dislike you in any way. I only dislike your attitude- Which, as I have said, can be masked. &mdash; Warw/Wick 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try to explain this the best I can.
 * I'm an over-sensitive person. Yes, there are senstive men, believe it or not. =) The problem here is that with me, being over-sensitive can often give me the appearance of being quite the opposite instead. Apart from anything else, this can add frustation to any issue for me.
 * Please be aware that I never do anything that harms the wiki. I once vandalized a page, it was when I felt that the edit before me was unacceptable, due to the context, and I did so only so that an admin would step in and protect the page. You are familiar with the raging inferno that happened over the Necromancer headgear, so I won't go into futher specifics. My point here is that the only time I ever "harmed" the wiki was with the best of intentions, and to benefit the site in the long run.
 * With the first two points in mind; being over-sensitive, I generally format things to the best that I can. I will not needlessly as wisely as my little wisdom permits insult anyone, or do wrong. I am far too caught up with the opinions of me that others hold, strangers or no.
 * Therefore, when I am "reprimanded" not quoting that, sorry for any confusion I always desire an unemotional quick expanation of why what I did was wrong. So I can quite easily get emotional; few if any users realize what I often go through when simply posting on the site. Unintentionally, I may well expect people to realize what it's like for me and bear that in mind. But I can promise you, if I do so, it is totally unintentional.
 * And I feel for the third or fourth time here I am wandering from the topic at hand. My apologies. What I am trying to say in my own unique way is that when I do the very best I can, I can get rather emotional about it. I like to think that all most of the time I'm open to valid and helpful arguments as to why I am in the wrong. I have in the past seen the light from a helpful WoT posted by User:WoT.
 * If such an explanation is not forthcoming, I do and will take it personally. I do my best for the site and when I feel someone goes against me and spends no / little time explaining why it rubs me the wrong way.
 * And I would like to thank you; after all we have been through I am frankly astounded that you said on two seperate occasions that you do not hate me. This alone shows you are a better person than I am. I apologize for the previous incarnation of my UserPage.
 * I don't feel I can remain on this site. Whenever I try to help I bash heads with other users, sometimes I guess, having the best of intentions accounts for nothing.
 * I hope this wasn't... too... long and that I made sense. I'd make a better effort at explaining what being over-sensitive is like and how it affects me for those who aren't burdened with it; but I can't. Like you can't understand it, I can't understand what it's like not to be over-sensitive.
 * Anyway; my final words on the matter: Thank you. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 23:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I wished to reply to most; I somehow left out.
 * I do not knowingly take a "superior" attitude, as alluded to above, being over-sensitive, I give everything a great deal of thought, and deeply care about the opinions others hold of me.
 * What I am aware of is that I get defensive; I feel backed into a corner somewhat when all my mental safeguards against doing something that will make me look stupid / put me in a bad light aren't enough.
 * And I had not meant to be rude, but I was getting more and more annoyed as time went on and the usual efforts I would have put in to avoid hurting El Nazgir's feelings I did not have the energy for. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "I always desire an unemotional quick expanation of why what I did was wrong." &mdash; we're not magicians here, insightful, unemotional and quick can't be done ;). I truly want to provide the explanations, but please give me a chance: step back, give me (or others) time, give yourself time to understand the explanation, too. There'll be a WoT posted higher up shortly. I also advise strongly against posting very personal information on the public internet, in your own interests. -- ◄User:WoT► 00:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem, Mendel.
 * I know I will never have any contact with her ever again, so what harm can come from it? She doesn't play games like GW, or indeed computer games of any kind, so I'll ignore it if suddenly "she" finds me and wishes to restore contact with me.
 * And nice signature =) --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 13:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It's been over two weeks now that I've wanted to reply to that "mask your true feelings" comment, but everything I had in my mind just didn't seem right &mdash; until today. I'm going to peg my musings on what Suicidal expressed above: "I always desire an unemotional quick explanation of why what I did was wrong. So I can quite easily get emotional". It can't be stated much clearer that to us, it is most useful when others post unemotionally; and that also it is most easy to post emotionally. This means that if we are most "selfish", we are most useless to each other! So how to improve?

When we write for the wiki, most of the time we are really writing for ourselves. In fact, that's why wikis work so well for game facts: the facts we write down for ourselves are the same facts that others would write down for themselves, and that saves everybody effort and makes for a great collection of information.

''We are each writing alone (look around you, whom do you see?), and as such, we are externalizing some inner monologue. Look up Weizenbaum's work on Eliza (I'll dig up a link for you if you can't find it) and realize that what you are writing to the wiki is part of that inner monologue in that its purpose is in part to feed your own thinking back to you. (I hope this becomes clearer later. ;-) This is the more so, the more you are using a "stream of consciousness" editing style.''

This means that you are taking your inner issues out on the wiki. Now, generally that is not necessarily bad, but it becomes that when other editors get involved in them that don't want to be. This reaction is partially because the wiki is in their personal "headspace" for them as well. So to protect the wiki as a community institution, personal issues of editors are best confined to their own user pages.

How can this be achieved? Well, I already laid down a lot of tips (now moved to GW:SHOUT); I guess the one that Warwick means is to selectively edit what you post: edit out ("mask") the emotional content, leave the factual. It is possible (and can be beneficial) to write unemotionally about emotions, in fact, you've done it above this post. Both is good.

I want to avoid the impression that this is targetted at ST alone, because of course it's not: we all are to some degree emotional on the wiki (I explained why, above), and it helps to be aware of that, and to be better editors means to not let ourselves and our fellow editors be surprised by our emotions. Find them, deal with them (on the wiki or off), don't let them run wild. Thank you.

Oh, and ST, if you want to return to us on these terms, you're more than welcome any time! -- ◄mendel► 11:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ty Mendel, but the last line really shows to me that you yourself know that this is wasted effort, appreciate the sentiment, though --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 13:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) btw wtf is with "I love WoW" ?

Perhaps more of an explanation is neede deserved.
''That I care about the opinions others hold of me rather too much is being proved by the existance of this post. I'm aware it confirms that, and yet I post it just the same.'' Is the word "post" applicable on this site?

Right, time to tell the story again, then, oh dear. I'd like to make one point exceptionally clear - I'm not going for the sympathy vote. This is so that anyone who cares and is interested can understad me as much as possible; the section has no other intended use.

My father was a violent bastard. My mother never had time for me. Nearly four years ago I feel in love with a person called Mona. I was on holidays for a week in Scotland. I'm Scottish myself; but live in Ireland. She is English, if you're interested.

I had but one week to spend time with her; not boyfriend / girlfriend story, she was about eight years older than me and did not share the feelings I had for her; that much I could tell. What I mean to say is that I knew her for one week; before having to board a plane and know I'd never see her again. I have always hated myself, with a vengeance, for the way we said goodbye. I was a child back then, and that negatively impacted the terms on which we parted. I also give my age a small share of the blame for her not sharing my feelings.

The point of the matter is that I, for a critical part of my development, grew up loathing myself, and despising the fact that I was young. I was tormented (literally - but of course not the way a Tormented Maul is) by the memory of us saying goodbye. Of my inexperience at... well, life, screwing me so royally.

So basically, I'm a victim of love - I never intend to allow myself to ever fall in love again - I don't accept the possiblity of someone loving me (heck, if my parents won't, who will?) and so view the emotion in a negative light. Love is not a good emotion; merely a strong one. I hold the belief that the pain caused by unrequited love is (or at the bare minimum has the potential to be) the only thing more powerful than love itself.

So in summary: I despise the fact I am young. I am obsessed with the opinions others have of me, and this all puts a great deal of mental strain on me, which can lead to great frustration when things go against me.

And indeed, if anyone got down this far; it must have put a great deal of strain on you, and particularly your eyes. Thank you anyway. --> Suicidal Tendencie 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this situation unfold, and realizing just how emotional everyone gets when you pluck the right string. I wanted to apologize about our "flaming inferno" and to admit that I largely shared a similar attitude you had.  I was extremely annoyed and frustrated, as it seemed to me that you completely ignored, or merely skimmed through my comments, without taking any time to comprehend what I was trying to say, but let's not go back to that now, there's no reason to.
 * It's hard to gather up a whole lot of self esteem when your own parents don't think much of you as a person. My mom often seems to see me just as an object that may possibly provide her a better retirement than she could do herself.  She never seemed to care about how I felt, only about my future earnings.  My dad was completely different, but he was driven away by her attitudes and demands, so I don't have much contact with him now, only an occasional phone call half the world away.  But oh well, you don't get to choose your family.  I also was "young and stupid" once, and regret certain things that I did while thinking it was love, when it really wasn't.  But I wanted to say that now, many many years later, real love found me when I least expected it, when I had given up looking for it long ago.  And I hope it happens to you too.  Some people say not to look for love or happiness, but let it find you instead.  Don't despise your youth, you will miss it when it's gone.  Instead, learn from it.
 * Wherever your ventures take you, whether you stay on this wiki or not, I hope that this experience taught you a little bit about your own emotions and those of others. We all live in a world of people, and learning to get along with others, no matter how different from yourself, is a big part of future success.  The most valuable part of a mistake is what you learned from it.  I hope we all learned something in the last few days.
 * Best of luck. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 04:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suicidal, I seem to be one of the most "normal" people on this wiki, if you compare mental states. I don't even know wether something is wrong with me, but I think there is somthing wrong. Hope you get the point. The point is, life sucks, but that doesnt mean it's not worth living. Do you have friends? Call them, and go and have a beer. Is there a sport you like? Check if there is a club nearby and call to see if you can join. Do you have a hobby? (outside Guildwars ofc) Find others who like the same thing, and have fun! Do you like a certain band/group/singer? Buy some tickets and go to a concert.
 * I'm not a man of many words. Infact, this is more then pretty anything I have ever written on this wiki. (emotional things, that is) I do not know how to express my feelings very good. But I hope I made clear that you shouln't hate yourself, but, well, How do I put this, forgive youself. It isn't worth to spend your whole life moaning about it. If you can't help yourself, go to someone who can (Doing just that saved at least one good friend of mine, I can reccommend it).
 * I have seen and heard (and done) bad things in my life, things I will never speak about. I have develloped a "attitude" to deal with that. What ever happens, I LOL at it, shrug my shoulders, and continue with what I was doing. Giving me a lecture isnt gonna do shit to me, cause I simply forget.
 * The whole point of this HUGE wall of text is that life sux a$$. You need to learn to let go, and laugh more. I hope I do not sound like I am the one giving a lecture, cause that isn't what I wish. I just hope I can give you some good advise and wish you the best off luck with the rest of your life. Although I hope you will come back. You still have some work to do ;)
 * C you around. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 09:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rose - Wise words, thank you.
 * Arnout - Please bear in mind this is four years ago, while I really appreciate it, I've tried to move on plenty of times. But here I am.
 * Both / neither - They say the best way to move on from a woman (or man, presumably) is to find a new one. Perhaps Rose is right, there.
 * Rose, I was not trying to restart the Necro incident, in which I think it's fair to say we both lost the plot, merely pointing to past precedent. Another case in point is that I tried to defend Gravewit, hoping I'd get the Fuck Gravewit - This user's outta here userboxes. Needless to say... this did not go well. Although while I believed I was doing the right thing - and I still believe that - I could accept it was fighting a losing battle; nothing more.
 * I would still appreciate it if the above mentioned userboxes are removed, Mendel, you yourself chided me over my previous UserPage. So, mind if I ask why you don't act to defend GraveWit? Or is the fact that you hate him too, more important? And yes, I am picking a scab. However I refuse to accept that it's over - because it's not. It's not over as long as a single person has that userbox. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 10:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as Gravewit is concerned, I've posted as much of a defense of his actions as I could justify on his talkpage when you raised the point there. If you are dissatisfied with that, feel free to carefully re-raise the point there, on my talk, on irc, or in a private email to me. -- ◄mendel► 11:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Suicidal, if you can't let go by yourself, I strongly reccommend you to find help. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 12:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Arnout, please don't consider this condencending in any way whatsoever. But perhaps you don't quite understand. No matter how it affects you, if it us returned or not, love is still love. And regardless of the pain cost, you don't wish it had never happened. And that's what trained people would suggest, they could bury the memory, and odds are that's what they want to do.
 * That week was the happiest of my entire life... I will not give up the memory. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mendel you are unusually insightful, and a very pleasant person. Unless you feel that you could decide by yourself to go on a rampage and take down all the userboxes, I will not burden you with the problem. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't go on rampages. There are six pages (search for "id=fuck gravewit") that I can find, of users that are no longer active, so even a suggestion to ninja edit this into "I'm still angry at Gravewit" seems kind of pointless to me. -- ◄mendel► 15:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * it seems intuitive to me that users who are outta here would no longer be active [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

tbh
I didn't even notice that Warwick had blocked you or herself until many hours after the fact. So it would have been mostly pointless to change either block as they would have expired soon anyway. I hope this "inaction" on my part doesn't come off as "tacit approval". I'm not happy with how this whole thing's went down, from various people, but I do not want to get more involved because a) I don't trust myself to make unbiased, impartial decisions with regards to many of those involved (see Mini Me's comments somewhere above), and b) frankly I don't see anything that requires my intervening, yet. I've also been discussing the issues with some people off the wiki for some time now; that's about as much as I am going to do at the moment. (T/C) 04:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for the message.
 * I'll admit I am surprised to learn that you were discussing it off the wiki.
 * From my point of view JonTheMon persisted in telling me to stop causing wiki drama, for quite a while, even though I asked, without really giving a reason in favour of maintaining that it was wiki drama. Then after I asked him a few times and we'd had a roundabout conversation of sorts, he pointed at RC, which I felt showed very bad character, all I had intended to add was two messages which I had done; it was mostly replying to him (and his own edits) which caused the RC problem which he then gave me the blame for.
 * When Warwick baited and baited me only to ban me, I did feel rather bemused to put it lightly. I had been blamed from my point of view back then, and now wrongly, and then when annoyed over it, she pushed me over the edge and gave me a ban just to rub salt in the wounds. Observing that it was only a day and she could have tried worse, and later that I was not the only one banned, I choose not to risk more drama appealing it.
 * But I couldn't help but feel touched by Felix's remarks. He struck me as fair 100% of the time, when defending both me and Warwick on my TalkPage. Like many I don't totally understand where Mendel was on the issue, other than saying since they both get a well needed day off let's leave things as they are.
 * One last point is that the numbers don't add up. To my way of thinking, Mendel appears to vaguely support the ban. Both Felix and MiniMe were... not so happy with it. Why is it, then, that the ban remained? Mendel liked the result of the ban, although I don't remember even him saying Warwick was in the right to ban me. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 11:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've explained some of mine and Warwick's (imputed) thinking up on User_talk:Suicidal_Tendencie. Another factor was that you basically had posted "goodbye wiki" on your user page, and that kind of talk usually takes a lot of impact off a block - after all, if you want to stop editing anyway, a block's not so terrible, is it? ;-) -- ◄mendel► 11:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I somewhat disagree with the ban, I can tell you why it remained: 2 don't make a consensus. Most people were for the ban, and in the end it's an admin decision, so yeah. -- Mini Me ↔  Talk  11:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Mendel, as I said, I considered letting the block run it's course a sign that the other admins thought "Yes, Warwick did have a right to bait him, then block him herself, we see nothing wrong here."
 * @ MiniMe, first of all, thank you for getting so involved, and I would like to just say that two is a rather large percentage of those who gave their thoughts on the matter on the wiki, I do not frequent IRC --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 13:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When I first commented there were ~34 comments already, so I felt the conversation had established itself. My basis for saying it was disruptive was RC (which I did eventually mention) but more along the lines of how much it was misunderstood and how you reacted to our reactions. I think the point i was trying to get across was: do you understand why some of us might consider it disruptive?
 * With regards to the ban: I did think you both needed a break, so that was preventative. And often a short ban like that is not worth reverting, even if someone disagrees with it, as short bans tend to be disputed and reverted.... after the ban is over. And it'd take another sysop to dedicate the time to review the conversation and come to a strong against decision. --JonTheMon 16:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)