User talk:Suicidal Tendencie/Archive 1

Ohaider. Welcome to this 'Wiki. Hope you enjoy your time here. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask ^^ --- -- (s)talkpage 18:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks :) Think I have the hang of it (though will probably prove myself wrong by putting this reply in the wrong place...). Suicidal Tendencie 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, don't worry. You did just fine :) Although we usually indent our comments by using a Colon when responding to someone. Just place x+1 colons in the beginning of your comment to indent, where x is the number of colons the user before you had. If this is confusing, sorry, I fail at explaining stuff :P --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Told you I'd fluff it. Why does my damn Dell keyboard seem to remove my attempts to sign my comments?Suicidal Tendencie 18:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea at all. I use an ancient Micro$oft keyboard. *always thought it was either Logitech or IBM O_o *, which can't even place accents on a letter. So I just use the [[Image:Button_sig.png]] Magical Sign Button *heavenly music and choir*. Always does the trick for me, unless I forget to click it (or click it when editing a Userpage. Yes I did that once >.> Or twice... ) --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my first day.... no, really.
''Er... hi all, tried a few things, failed miserably. If someone could tell me how to get "Intro" on a new line I'd be extremely grateful. Maybe one day I'll be good at this....nah, doubt it.'' Suicidal Tendencie 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Try adding

above the header. That should do the trick. --- -- (s)talkpage 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanx, I'll be the one who never gets the hang of it and people end up cracking jokes about me thinks... Suicidal Tendencie 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry. Everyone's a wikinoob some time. It's hard if you dont have any experience with coding beforehand. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 18:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, reading that i finally realised what

does, in the past i've always just spammed  untill things lined up right xD --Cobalt  | Talk  18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Want me to fix the blackout box you put and then removed? --Powersurge360 09:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Er... how do you add the images on new ones? Suicidal Tendencie 09:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) Pssst try [[Image:Blackout.jpg]] --Powersurge360 09:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Set the logo parameter to logo = [[Image:Whatever.jpg|50px]] . [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 09:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now I doubt more than ever I'll get good at doing things on Wiki... watch me mess it up again Suicidal Tendencie 09:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at me! 6 months ago, i was a total wikinewb! Now I'm equal to pan *cough* or not *cough cough*.. :P. And dont break GW:YAV or I'll get Felix to ban you. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 09:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If Warwick told me to ban you, I'd nominate you for an RfA just to spite her. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 09:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing I don't understand... I joined yesterday, how many people have looked @ my user page/user talk page since then? Suicidal Tendencie 09:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Be nice Failix. [[Image:Maui_sig.png]] 09:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably around 50. Failix smash. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 09:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't play with me, I'm sleep-deprived... Did I seriously break "You are valuable"? Purely unintentional if so. (EC AGAIN!) Um... alot? I don't know if there's a way to tell. (EC AGAIN AGAIN) --Powersurge360 09:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sui, people tend to patrol RC (Recent Changes). Odds are, every time your page popped up on that list, somebody looked at it. :] [[Image:Maui_sig.png]] 09:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you to all those above who helped me with the userbox Suicidal Tendencie 09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gone
I've left so don't bother trying to contact me, you're all pathetic, lay off Gravewit and get a life. -->Suicidal Tendencie 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, no one is "laying on" Gravewit. Until you started up discussions on the talk page, no one else was even paying a whim of attention to it.  It is extremely old news... and no one really cares anymore.  I don't know why you are beating this dead horse.  -- [[Image:Isk8.png]]   I~sk8   (T/C) 16:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You're leaving because people you don't know have an opinion of someone else you don't know over a situation that occurred over half a year ago? I don't think it's us that need to get a life, but anyways... There's more to the wiki than just Gravewit, so come back whenever -- Dr R. Phalange  16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else hoping Gravewit or someone else does another version of this?
Remembered why I don't like the Official one... and discovered another reason. They both have the same flaw. Floating about on the Internet with anyone being able to edit them/join as users/be an asshole means there's a lot of... people who are probably not worth having around. I'm beginning to think the GW:YAV should be looked at again. And one last ditched attempt (I do NOT want replies to this, but will get some anyway) anyone look @ GW:YAV and the things said about Gravewit? It raises a point. That point will get me abuse. Ah well. -->Suicidal Tendencie 14:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a wiki. Anyone is allowed to edit them, it's how a wiki works. Bug [[Image:Brown_stink_bug_adult_copy.png|19px||My Talk]] 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you see how that can be a weakpoint? -->Suicidal Tendencie 14:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It absolutely is- the very premise of a wiki is based on the supposition that every member of the community works toward the betterment of the site. In reality, this isn't the case, so we have to settle for what we can get. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You got abuse over that as well if I remember rightly. Abuse you didn't deserve I might add. Ever notice admins fail to treat all cases equally? -->Suicidal Tendencie 15:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your sentiment, but in the interest of peace and no more headaches I won't comment beyond this- we are all only human. Everyone would like to believe that the people running the wiki are capable of making completely fair, rational, and unbiased decisions 100% of the time, but again, when reality meets fantasy reality always wins. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 15:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I just thought, I better add this. I've a tendency to try and defend people I feel are getting a hard time, I wasn't trying to stir something up by saying that or trying to create "drama". -->Suicidal Tendencie 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People generally receive a hard time for a reason; in this case, a very good reason. -- Dr R. Phalange 16:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You think the actions of somebody should lead to the basic foundations of how people interact with each other, including, but not limited to, the GW:NPA and GW:YAV, being forgotten and you, in your position here, think that that is how it should be and support that idea? -->Suicidal Tendencie 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When one person acts against everyone else on the wiki, screw policy. The wiki comes first and if policy comes in the way of that, get rid of policy. If everyone feels the need to act against policy, you can be sure there's a damn good reason. -- Dr R. Phalange 16:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is, if I mentioned I was a fan of Green Day, and got really unpopular because of that, according to you, as everyone feels the same, they are free to ignore ideas such as the 2 mentioned above, GW:NPA and GW:YAV. Correct me if I'm wrong please. -->Suicidal Tendencie 16:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gain some perspective. Whether or not you like Green Day has no effect on the workings of a wiki. Illegally selling out to someone who screws the wiki over and over behind the collective backs of the whole community ruins a wiki. -- Dr R. Phalange 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't presume to be a legal expert, if it is, why don't you get one to look into it as you clearly feel so strongly on the matter?-->Suicidal Tendencie 16:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly because it happened almost a year ago in situations I wasn't here for, and also because I have a little nagging feeling that Wikia has better lawyers than the guy down the street. I'm only responding to you because of your need to dig this up again. -- Dr R. Phalange 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I made my feelings clear that I think they're not always kept it mind... we were having a fine discussion until YOU brought it back up, I merely used an example. -->Suicidal Tendencie 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I just got thrown off by the fact that this was a discussion on Gravewit and policy, and how policy was ignored when giving him a hard time. -- Dr R. Phalange 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That was, honestly, an example, it was meant as nothing more. -->Suicidal Tendencie 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Two points: One, GW:YAV in practice amounts to "don't pull (lack of) rank". Nothing else. You may have been thinking about GW:AGF, and even this only goes so far: you can't abolish thoughtlessness by policy, and you can't forbid people interpreting the actions they think they perceive, even if the only thing that conects them with the person they feel sure about knowing about is some wiki software operating at typing speed. We're just personas here, and how you react to me will shape how I play my persona in this corner of the net. Exaggeration is the norm, unfortunately.
 * Point two: the very premise of a wiki is based on the supposition that every member of the community works toward the betterment of the site. (Felix, emphasis mine) No, it is not. If it was, there'd be no need for a history. The premise of the wiki is that the majority of users works toward the betterment of some part of the site, that they even out those with ill will and correct their mistakes, hopefully not stirring up too much drama along the way. I've had at least two severe differences of opinion with Pan Sola, and if we'd both been other members of this wiki, we'd have been all over the wiki with that. But we're not, and I'm proud of that, and respect PanSola for it. It would be easy to come to the conclusion that if we disagree, one of us must not be working to the betterment of the wiki. If you're used to binary logic, that must be true. But in fact it is not true, we both are, even though that may not be apparent.
 * From what I've read, Gravewit thought he was working for the betterment of the wiki. He felt unable to bear the responsibility of keeping the Wiki financially viable and thought that wikia were in the best position to guarantee that. He made the mistake of underestimating community politics - and this is the real drawback (as far as I can see) to Wikis. Since it is basically an open, ad-hoc community, you never know which edits or decisions blow up in your face and cause you to spend energy on discussions. The advantage is that you can do it to others: you can question their edits and learn from what they tell you with the energy they give you. Whatever policies there are serve mainly to ensure that this energy is harnessed as effectively as possible. Those who hate Gravewit and take no effort to understand the situation he was in won't profit from the experience when they are in the same situation - when it is their lone decision that blows up in their face unexpectedly. And believe me, as soon as you're editing on a wiki, that is what happens.
 * It is to some degree mitigated by the people who have formed a community sticking up for each other, i.e. people will support each other on issues (and this is what looks like a YAV violation) because they've been through the issues before, and it means that someone else gets the blast in the face. But if you do that too much, the wiki gets stale. If you can come to a wiki, raise a ruckus and people take you seriously, you can start bettering the wiki. With gusto! And that is why I am still editing here.
 * This has turned out to be quite a sermon on wikis. "Wall of Text", as we call it nowadays. Preaching for hope and faith in Wiki. The reason is probably that this is what I am learning at this time, coming to learn the meaning of wiki. If that means I have to stand up and preach hope and faith in the wiki, so be it. You may sit down now, sermon's over. --mendel 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The basic idea of a wiki is that if you want thousands of pages of information, that's far too much for any single person to do. Furthermore, no single person has the necessary expertise to write all of the pages.  Instead, allowing anyone to edit things lets a lot of different people add their own pieces gets a lot more information up.  Even that often isn't enough, though, and I don't just mean on minor details.  Even a couple years after release, the pages on Dunes of Despair and Vizunah Square were pretty pathetic.  Most of the GWEN dungeons have little to no tactical information on their pages, though having not tried them, I suppose it's plausible that they're just easy enough that it doesn't matter.  And it's not a case of competition from the official wiki, either; find a place where something is woefully incomplete on this wiki, check the official wiki, and usually that one will be even worse.
 * Allowing everyone to edit things seems dangerous, but the group that cares the most tends to win out. For vandalism, this works pretty well, because a lot of people who want the vandalism gone collectively care more about it than one isolated vandal who doesn't particularly care and will be banned soon anyway.
 * Where it really breaks down is when it's technical information that few people know about, and in a domain that many care about. Hot political issues where the facts aren't entirely known are the worst case of this that I know of; a long wiki page on global warming or the war in Iraq would be almost certain to contain some bad information if the wiki is popular and the page isn't protected.  In a computer game where most factual claims can be easily verified or refuted by a large number of people, that situation tends not to come up too much.  Quizzical 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quizzical, in your summary you write: ''"another version of this?:" And start over on content entirely? No thanks.'' You know that we can take the content with us, right? The problem is going to be taking the community. --mendel 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)