User talk:Tenetke15051

playing by the rules
The comments below are directed at previous comments now archived, see the archive section for that information

If it doesn't work, the option is to contact your friendly neighborhood admin and, if that fails, bureaucrat. It would also help to state your grievance more explicitly. -- ◄mendel► 22:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In a little more detail: I let your Auron is a hypocrite stand even though it is a personal attack because you explained what you meant by that and so allow a counter by dialogue. For the same reason I let stand what Auron posted above; because even though his opinion of you is not flattering to you, he explains it in detail and allows you to post a refutation. You can of course choose not to and let the matter rest; that doesn't mean you agree, merely that you can't be bothered. -- ◄mendel► 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry I was looking something up. I do not like cussing on my user talk page. How often do you see me use that language on your talk page. It isn't just that, it is other things. His opinion of me is not really what bothers me at all. I just think like everyone said the rules can't really touch him. So I think the best way to solve this is off the wiki entirely. [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The rules can touch everyone, even Auron or me. I thought we'd clarified that after the recent drama. If you don't like the language, it is usually considered acceptable for you to [ edit that out] on your own userpage, even if it is in other people's comments. I know that's not completely satisfactory, but it may be a compromise. -- ◄mendel► 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is fine, really. I am not angry anymore. Thanks. [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 22:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I also have to tell you that I consider [ this edit] a personal attack and not an argument. Please think twice before posting in anger again. If I had posted that, I'd be editing it down right now. -- ◄mendel► 23:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are actually right. I will go edit it right now. [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 23:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All fixed. [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 23:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd think it would be quite profitable to take the issues that you have with Auron up with him when you're not also angry (I realize this may be difficult). You do disagree on what constitutes fact, and given proper context, each of you could be right. -- ◄mendel► 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanted to thank you for your advice. I was a bit hotheaded because I finally thought all of this had died down. In the end though it will not. If I don't say anything I get to look forward to random rants on my user talk page, if I do then I end up looking like the bad guy. I just don't feel like it, and I really don't want to be around such drama. [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 01:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not worried about it anymore. I deleted it not because I am making it nicer, I am simply cleaning up a few things. Auron doesn't have the first clue about what a fact is. His opinions he looks on as facts because he is narcissistic. That is his deal not mine. Personally I realized that no matter how I end up taking care of this, I am done here. Let me clarify, that isn't an I am done here as a form of drama. That is a if I take care of this how I want I will be permabanned. [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can virtually guarantee you that nothing you could do in this context would warrant a permaban. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) ² There are some "virtual" building sites out there that look like swamp land to the uninformed eye, too. ;-) -- ◄mendel► 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL I am an extremist, sort of. =P I am curious what are the rules concerning a persons talk page. I mean where could I find those at if someone could point me to a place I would be most appreciative. [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there aren't really any rules, other than you are allowed to remove comments from your own talk without moving them to an archive, though this isn't done a lot. -- Shadowcrest  23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * JediRogue wrote a draft policy on censorship, but it didn't get too far. Censorship. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I improved it at What_(not)_to_Delete. Still, what you can get away with on userpages is pretty much unwritten; generally, quashing other people's voices is not good for your rep; Warwick has had success with archiving unwanted topics quite quickly, though. -- ◄mendel► 00:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's your user page (which includes your user talk page), you can censor it however you like. If you're too aggressive about censoring people, then people will ignore your user talk page and take their conversations elsewhere.  Censoring statements of others elsewhere (e.g., a mainspace talk page) should require a much, much stronger reason than merely because you want a comment gone, of course, and is rarely appropriate at all.  Quizzical 00:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Censorship really wasn't an issue for me. I was more wondering about what types of things I could include in my user, and user talk pages. I think that the comments above are taking up a ton of room, so I might archive soon, but I am not sure. [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 01:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, User talk:Anonymous pages/Boobies has a long discussion on what offends. You can be somewhat more free in voicing your opinion of other users on your own pages, but you'll still be called on excessively attacking other users. Without coming out and actually stating what it is you're planning to do it is hard to say. -- ◄mendel► 01:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Going by GuildWiki Tradition, nearly anything verbal is permissible on userpages (see User:Misfate, User:GW-Skuld. Images, however, cannot even approach risque without drawing complaints (see User talk:Organism X). And talk pages are typically 10,000x more lenient on subject matter than the pages themselves. See Talk:Vampirism. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 02:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I plan on trying to handle things with Auron off the wiki. In my anger earlier I posted some nasty comments, and that isn't like me. I don't like the idea of a place like this becoming some battle ground between conflicting egos. For my own part I deleted all of that and I intend from this day forward to ignore Auron and any comments he makes. I will delete anything further he posts to this user page. I believe I am well within the rules in doing so, I will archive the stuff above though. Fact is I acted in a manner that is inappropriate, but we all make mistakes. So all that aside. What I was curious about is posting some image tutorials on here, it seems some people are interested in that type thing. I had debated just leaving here, but this place is some really nice and intelligent people. It would be stupid of me to just run away when I can have some really valuable conversations here. If you want an example of some of the cool conversations just look at the topic below. Or the one about good and evil. I will not give up these things over some troll. Unless it is stated I can not settle things outside the wiki with Auron I will just let it drop on here. I need to go read that archive post now. I also can't wait to throw my hat in below either. Tenetke Mekko   My Talk 02:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you would be well within your user rights to remove posts you consider offensive (or even simply more trouble than they're worth) from your talk page. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 02:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Truth
See Truth by consensus and Consensus theory of truth (I'm sure there must be better articles out there). I've come across it reading on how scientific progress is made; with science you'd expect truth to be based on facts, but the fact is that what any actual scientist thinks is a true theory is often based upon scientific consensus more than evidence: because a "theory" is basically an opinion on how to best explain the world, and only the world, the experient itself, is a fact. Read like this, "gravitation" isn't a fact, but an opinion; clearly, this is much too narrow and interpretation for the everyday use of fact, and as soon as you admit stuff like that as "fact", there is a huge grey area where fact and opinion mix. Auron refers to a general consensus among educated (= experienced in the game) players, and that is a notion that, if you cannot attack it by claiming this group of players doesn't exist or that Auron is not in it, makes what he says as much fact as "the earth revolves around the sun" was in Galilei's time. (The earth-sun thing is, given the extremely strict interpretation, not a "fact" either, btw.) -- ◄mendel► 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With science, you have some hard experimental data that you can go to. You can say, yes, this data set fits this theory, or no this data set does not fit this theory.  With opinions about whether a skill in Guild Wars is good or not, there isn't such data and replicable experiments.  All you have is opinions.
 * The problem science faces is that in some cases, there is vastly more data than others. With classical mechanics in dealing with objects on an everyday scale, you can do rudimentary experiments with ordinary household materials.  As such, there is an overwhelming amount of data saying that it is a very good approximation.  Relativity and quantum mechanics throw things off a bit, of course, but those corrections are infinitessimal for most purposes.
 * In contrast, with astronomy, we can't go inside a star to measure, travel to another galaxy to view things from a billion light years away, go forward or back in time by a billion years, or anything of that sort. All we can do is look around from what for most purposes is only a single point in the universe at a single moment in time.  Trying to infer things from that far more limited data set is intrinsically a lot more precarious, and so astronomy doesn't really have that many "facts" where it would be a complete shock if it were totally wrong--not even a good approximation, but way, way off.
 * Most of what scientists know is based on, that's what they've always heard from credible sources, and they've never heard a credible source contradict it. A scientist will have far greater expertise in the area in which he does research, of course, but that's intrinsically a very thin slice of one field.  If a scientist does come up with something that casts serious doubt on accepted theories, he can often make enough noise about it to make a lot of other scientists doubt the theory as well.
 * It's necessary to say a "credible" source because there are some crazy people out there who fancy themselves as scientists. This doesn't mean a PhD with merely unorthodox views.  The crazy people generally have no better science background than a lot of high school students, and often can't go five minutes without asserting something that is howlingly wrong.
 * I talked to one physicist who said that at the meetings of some well-respected physics society, there is nearly always a "general physics" section that real scientists know to avoid. The crazy people ask to give talks at the society meetings, and get assigned to the general physics section to give a talk in front of other crazy people.  That prevents them from creating a ruckus about how they're being censored while preventing them from doing any harm.
 * On another topic, Galileo did not know that the earth revolves about the sun. While he asserted that it was true, he didn't have the evidence to back it up.  The best scientific guess in his day was that the sun revolved about the earth; everything else seemed to do so except for five planets.
 * There wasn't a legitimate explanation of why the earth revolves about the sun and not the other way around until Newton came along and proposed that the force that makes various celestial objects rotate about each other is the same force that makes an apple fall to the ground if you release it. Seriously; try to come up with a line of reasoning on why the earth should revolve about the sun without relying on Newton's Law of Gravity or any later theories.
 * This is a very different issue from the earth being round, which is another commonly cited bit of science. A number of human civilizations knew in ancient times that the earth was round, because that is much easier to prove.  The most direct evidence comes during a lunar eclipse.  One sees the earth's shadow upon the moon and says, oh look, it's round.  Another is noting that when a ship sails off into the distance, after a while, one can see the sails but not the hull.  That shouldn't happen if the earth were flat.  Yet another line of reasoning is to observe that the highest angle of the sun in the sky varies by geographic location; assuming that the earth is round fits the data that can be obtained in that way quite well.  Indeed, this one allowed people to measure the radius of the earth in ancient times.  Quizzical 01:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "With opinions about whether a skill in Guild Wars is good or not, there isn't such data and replicable experiments. All you have is opinions." I'd just like to point out that sometimes, to the contrary, people do the hard math and statistics which prove beyond a doubt that Skill X is better than Skill Y, for example. Obviously this can't be done for every skill in the game, but (for example) there's no way in hell that Breath of Fire outdamages Searing Heat given identical conditions. (I know that's a bad example, but I'm just trying to make the point that there are some facts to go off of.) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User talk:GW-Dragonrider is a better example. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But there are pros and cons to those skills. Breath of Fire costs only 5 energy rather than 15.  Glimmer of Light has a faster cast time and a shorter recharge.  Quizzical 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I didn't state that one is necessarily better than another; merely that there are certain facts which one can't argue with, and if one is to have a valid opinion about skills, they must accept and use those building blocks. E.g. Fact: Given a non-moving foe who is not immune to Burning, Searing Heat will always deal more damage than Breath of Fire. Fact: at 12 Healing Prayers and 12 Divine Favor, Word of Healing is always more efficient in terms of healing per energy spent than Glimmer of Light if the target is under 50% health. Fact: One saves more energy over time using Ether Signet as opposed to Signet of Recall at any rank of Inspiration Magic. And so on and so forth... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Socrates and Diogenes arrived at truthby reasoning alone. -- ◄mendel► 03:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But they didn't know whether the earth revolved about the sun. Quizzical 03:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Truth and Fact are different. I am a huge believer in [Objective][Facts]. Subjective reasoning is too faulty. Just my view though [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

fact
On Auron's talk, Tenetke defines fact as "5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality". How do you determine that? Something's real to you subjectively when you think it is; it is real intersubjectively when other people think that as well, and that's usually a good indicator for objective reality. But ontologically, there is no way to measure the objective reality of most things beyond "cogito ergo sum". Did the emperor really have new clothes?

So if a few people are informed about GvG to the point where you can call them experts, and they all make the same statement = they're seeing the same thing, it's not far amiss to call that "fact". That is taking the broad view, but most other definitions are less useful. -- ◄mendel► 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I always like reading your responses. You have a way of picking up on some things, and I really enjoy it. Objective versus subjective is an interesting part of the discussion. For objective take 1 + 1 = 2. It was 2 before humans existed, it would be 2 if humans all ceased to exist tomorrow. I know that you know (yes convoluted) what I am talking about. Take for example the claim of Frenzy is the best warrior skill. This would only be an objective truth if every possible choice of every possible condition would result in the same answer. That means roughly that if even one single person who played a warrior did not think that frenzy was the best warrior skill, it is not objective. It goes further, for it to be objective it would mean that even if all humans died tomorrow, and an alien race suddenly came to earth each of them that played guild wars would have to agree that frenzy is the best warrior skill. Objective facts are few and far between because they are so hard to obtain. Even scientific law is not considered an objective fact. Certain things 'in' scientific law are considered objective, but not everything.
 * Man this is such a cool conversation[[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have 1 pile of sand and 1 other pile of sand and you put them together, you get 1 (bigger) pile of sand. In this case, 1+1=1. There are still assumptions you need to make (the axioms must be true) for this to work. Your "even one single person" argument falls short because if you remember school mathematics tests, there were always a few people (many, in some cases) who had different answers, yet there is one that is objectively right. Truth is arrived at by reasoned debate, and it is the same way in mathematics. Mathematics and most other sciences have some rules what methods may be used in this debate, and which methods are out, but they're not carved in stone. -- ◄mendel► 12:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing about my tutorial, I had hoped to get some feedback from you. =P What you stated is true to a degree. You can't get around that one pile of sand plus the second pile will still be larger than the first or second individually and not smaller than the first or second individually. In the case of sand piles though you would need to reduce it to what it constitutes. So X amount of sand grains plus Y amount of sand grains will still be X+Y. I agree that consensus is arrived at by reasoned debate, but objective truth is arrived at without debate being necessary. Remember that objective truth is independent of observation, and since reasoned debate must include observational data. Well you see where I am going with this. Say for example the math question is 1 + 1 = X. If everyone in the class puts 1 then it will not change the fact that everyone of them is wrong. At one point is was consensus that the world was flat, but that was still wrong. So while consensus can be reached, it is still not an objective fact is it? I have this huge grin on my face discussing this. I must say that these discussions have become a bright point in my day. Then again who isn't happy talking about the nature of things? [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]   Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1+1= 10 imo. --JonTheMon 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - like they say, there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those that understand binary and those that don't. Shadowlance 17:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary
It is a good idea to link to the whole entry if it is online so people can check what you left out (much like sourcing your quotations is a good idea in a paper), but to copy only the excerpt you actually plan on using. -- ◄mendel► 12:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering definitions won't get you anywhere. I would know. -- Shadowcrest  15:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True mendel, but if I only copy some of it we are bound to have someone question what was left out. Next time though I will go with that and only copy over what is useful to the discussion. To shadowcrest that doesn't really make sense concerning the discussion at hand. This isn't about the wiki at all, this is more of a philosophical discussion about what truth and facts are. I only use talk pages for these discussions, but they are quite interesting. So don't worry about all that, this isn't a good or bad thing it is for fun. It may seem out of place, but intelligent people don't often find good discussion. Most people are content to discuss their local sports team, but they don't really want to discuss the more interesting facts about reality, truth, or morality. Nothing wrong with sports, just that I crave intelligent discussion about philosophy, math, science, and most of all medicine. [[Image:Spikeicon.png]]  Tenetke Mekko    My Talk 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tutorial
Well, there was nothing about your tutorial because I didn't have time to look at it when I posted earlier. It looks well done, but I'm a) not really interested in it and b) I know enough so that a shorter version would have sufficed. I suggest putting it on a subpage (you've probably been planning that anyway). -- ◄mendel► 17:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)