User talk:Felix Omni/archive11

?
... 21:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * wtf? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * wtf? -- Shadowcrest  21:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ¿ɟʇʍ Cress Arvein [[Image:Cress sig.JPG]] 23:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WTF???? Random Time  23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ¿qla?--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Roar.]]îğá†ħŕášħ 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * wtf? -- Shadowcrest  14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Что за чертовщина? RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 05:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ^ WTF??--72.189.92.141 16:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

you filth
yarr --  Shadowcrest  14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * oh well lol [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha (nicely done!)
Normally, I would be shocked, simply shocked that someone would edit my chat. But this is rotfl. Nicely done. :-)  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 05:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We do what we must, because we can. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 18:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't make a habit out of this
I dunno, maybe you should continue this &mdash; it's too darn tootin' funny for you to stop now. &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Zaishen quest template
I have a feeling that eventually every boss, mission, or PvP arena will be covered by one of these quests. Are we seriously going to add that template to each of those articles? Would make more sense to create one like "Zaishen Bounty Quest" or something, and list all the bosses it requested, and on what days. Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong place, just saw you add that (redlinked) template to Kanaxai. RoseOfKali 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Each one has different rewards and dialogue though. They're functionally separate quests, and people searching for them will enter the name of the quest, which is usually the name of the boss, mission, or arena. So I think this is the best way to document the quests. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 05:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually, but not always (like the Coldstones bounty), but I forgot about the quest names bit. Wish Anet didn't do that, just makes stuff more confusing to document.  I guess we'll have to write up the quest description for each one now... >_<  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 05:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Harn and Maxine Coldstone one, I used a couple of redirects (from the in-game quest name, and from Maxine Coldstone/Zaishen Quest); maybe the article should be located at Harn and Maxine Coldstone, and both /Zaishen Quests redirect to it, but that would ruin the consistency. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 05:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, consistency will become an issue, especially if we start getting more of these odd names. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 05:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Locate at Harn and Maxine Coldstone/Zaishen Quest IMO (caps?). -- ◄mendel► 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. As Felix said, people will be searching for the quest name.  Just link to both bosses from there.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done and done. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"false alarm"
Care to tell us what set off that alarm? Random Time  21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked Gaile a question on GWW and she deleted it like 20 minutes later. But it turns out it was an accident. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 21:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pride
Isn't it one of the deadly sins? -- ◄mendel► 06:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moderation in all things is key. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 06:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARegina_Buenaobra&diff=1465164&oldid=1464975
Entropy (C) 01:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll notify Ian. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

States
People in America used to say pigs'll fly before there's a black president Well, they've a black president, and swine flu. A F K When Needed 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mexican flu. Entropy [[Image:Entropy Sig 2.jpg]] (C) 21:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't get it, then? *sad* A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 22:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ^_^ Did you make that up or steal it? RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 05:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been making the rounds. There are a bunch more swine flu jokes circulating. -- ◄mendel► 04:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My talk page
Unprotection would be nice... since I am emo and all the site isn't blacklisted *prances off to troll GWW* (\\.-) -- GW-Shadowphoenix  (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Someone else got to it first. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Listen!
the void left by WikiAnswers is filled Entropy (C) 06:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect for my Tingle. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just read the ticket. (said in mock Gigathrash voice)
RSVP on User:Gigathrash/D&D IRC RP --Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 21:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) -- AudreyChandler 21:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ooooooooooooooooo [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 01:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hi there, Felix. Sorry to bother you... I can't help it. I'm always intrigued(?) by people such as yourself. So I was wondering if I could ask ya something. I found this: When it comes to good revert notes, it's general consensus that a detailed edit summary is good, and an even more detailed talk page section is ideal. - here (nearly half way down the page). I was wondering to what degree you believe that, as surely it would be... excessive, for every edit to have it's own section. Yes, I know that you ≠ consensus, but if you didn't agree with it, I don't think you'd have mentioned it. A F K When Needed 17:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be impossible for every edit to be a revert, so there certainly wouldn't be a situation in which every edit to an article would merit explanation. It's only really necessary, in my opinion, when regarding reverts to non-vandalism and non-style-and-formatting edits. I feel that whenever a user is flat-out reverted, he or she deserves an explanation as to why; otherwise, what motivation do they have to edit again in the future? And an explanation should go beyond "No, bad idea is bad" or "That doesn't work." The problem is that writing out a detailed explanation is time-consuming and often frustrating, because the reverter feels that such reasoning ought to be common sense. Thus, while there may be editors out there who derive sadistic pleasure from snarky non-informative revert summaries (these are probably the same individuals who slap basketballs away from children and shout "DENIED!"), I think the majority of the editing populace is well aware that they ought to explain their reverts better, but do not do so simply because it's too much work, and "they ought to see why anyway." [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Only flat out reverted, k, m'bad - thanx A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When somebody went and made your edit better, you're not not nearly as frustrated as when somebody just nixed it and you don't understand why. So explaining why you did that is much more important when it's a straight revert - and sometimes writing the explanation makes you think of a way to make the edit better instead of reverting it. -- ◄mendel► 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)