User talk:Dirael

Smash Wiki stuff
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
* 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
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. [[Image: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. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 06:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

so i herd
Lord Shadowcrest Failmore III is moving up in the world. :> (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 [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So I herd u liek rollback rights.[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]reanor 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
Supposed to be, at least. 05:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk archive 5 is filled with red links of wub. [[Image: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. [[Image: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
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
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. [[Image: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. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also wtb logs. &mdash;[[Image: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. [[Image: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
4srs, unless you're running Great Burning Chicken (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 [[Image: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. [[Image: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. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 15:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

don't ban yourself just because you want to take a break
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 ) 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. [[Image: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 :) [[Image: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 [[Image: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. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 22:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been called an asshole in 12 different languages. Top that.--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]îğá†ħŕášħ  23:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Events
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.) (T/C) 05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverse Psychology
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. (T/C) 08:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In my experience as a psychologist, girls tend to be desirable :P[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]<strong style="color: black;">reanor 16:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See? I'm right :P --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or are you wrong? Since apparently the header makes things go all reversy. [[Image:Rsz_PLSig.jpg‎]] 17:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm....
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. [[Image: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. --<font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  22:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop failing
And fix IRC. I keep getting G-Lined.--Łô√ë <font color="Black">îğá†ħŕášħ 00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed what you're saying. --<font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  00:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Wear it with pride! <3 09:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Salad
giver me ops bak. &mdash; Warw/Wick 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You should never have had them. And btw, this was a collaborative decision. --<font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded via email. --◄mendel► 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User groupies
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. (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. [[Image: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
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?
Plz? I finally re-installed Guild Wars and want to give you my gift.-- (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? --[[Image:Sandaljack.icon.png|Clamiam]] Sandaljack 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Three Wise Norn map
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 (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 [[Image:Wolfie_sig.jpg|19px]] (talk|contribs) 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Check your e-mail
When you wake up. Raffle stuff. 08:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Raffle tix
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
Did I miss the party? Dangit!-- (Talk) (Contr.) 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I at least know who got my gift?--[[Image: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 [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Ho ho ho.]]<font color="Red">îğá <font color="Green">†ħŕášħ  20:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I never got an email.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 22:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A response would be nice, Shadow...--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 22:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

UglyFox
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. (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) [[Image: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? --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

stop being afk
and get back on gw plz. Cress Arvein 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

documentation
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 ) 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) [[Image: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.  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

mpooca
<3 &mdash; Nova   &mdash;  (contribs) 17:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know right <3 --  Shadowcrest  17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosalie
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 -_- [[Image: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. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You lost an 'h' in there. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 23:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mendel's HASS (Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences), obv [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah I mendel's ass. [[Image: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 [[Image: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. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  03:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually heard people say "oh-twelve". It makes me sad. [[Image: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?[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]] Entrea   [Talk]  04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ro-sa h -lee (or -li). Accent + dialect = ftw. Dutch is full of crap, too. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  12:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ^ Yup. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 10:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

msn
doth you have it &mdash; Nova   &mdash;  (contribs) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * he doth not. :( GET EET SALAD &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not allowed to. It's too dangerous. [[Image: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. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

^MSN
Is irrelevant; Gmail please :( --- -- (contribs)  &emsp;(talk)  17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is actually a good idea. Built-in chat is gud and under-the-radar. [[Image: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
Rose - Ali. Silly foreign pronunciations. -- - talk 11:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

header
azzacasters r strong n brave in pve (T/C) 04:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * more like terrifail and outclassed  --  Shadowcrest  04:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosalicrest
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. (T/C) 03:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

salutations and/or greetings
hello rosalie, how are you today, do i get brownie points (or brownies) for getting your name right &mdash; Nova   &mdash;  (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

 * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Beast master‎; 20:03 . . (+16,033) . . Thalestis (Talk | contribs | block) (Personal observations and adventures in beastmastery)

Rotflols over you <3 --- -- (contribs)  &emsp;(talk)  18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * !gtfo Viper --  Shadowcrest  23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Moot point
But why do I suddenly have 200 access? <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We (I'm not naming names here) got tired of you always kicking Warwick randomly. [[Image: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... <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  21:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

politikz
In Canada, the Liberals are considered a moderate party. lolgg. &mdash; Nova   &mdash;  (contribs) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Poll
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...
This was epic.

Praise aside, good to know someone finally got the little bugger. 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. [[Image: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? [[Image: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. [[Image: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!
RoseOfKali 13:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday Shadowcrest. Cress Arvein [[Image: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!--[[Image:Progger.png]] - talk 14:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy birth day! -- ◄mendel► 15:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday :> --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  16:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(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 [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

+1 <font color="#DD2200">Lord Belar 22:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

so, guess what
...and then my mind went blank. (T/C) 05:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

sparknotes
ya rly --71.246.218.44 01:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sparknotes suck. In fact, any sort of pre-packaged notes suck. [[Image: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. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 14:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

note
i can spam ur talkpage wile ur goen &mdash; Nova   &mdash;  (contribs) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So can I. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm here too. Cress Arvein [[Image:Cress sig.JPG]] 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yay! A signature collection! RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 18:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Joy. Also; me too! --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(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?... [[Image: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." [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try looking under the desk.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Roar.]]<font color="Black">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. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

y so democratic
Salad is obsessed with polls Yes No (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... :\ [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
You have literally judged a book by its cover. Ultimate fail. 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.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]<font color="Green">El_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. [[Image: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"... [[Image: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? --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  19:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ec x2 I 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. [[Image: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 [[Image: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 [[Image: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. [[Image: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. [[Image: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. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole thread is epic lulz. [[Image: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). [[Image: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? [[Image: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." [[Image: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. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

btw
omg omg omg (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. [[Image: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. [[Image: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. [[Image: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. [[Image: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? [[Image: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. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)