(That one user again)
(Why?: new section)
Line 161: Line 161:
Done and done, Defiant Elements. --[[User:Enigmatic Mr. L|Enigmatic Mr. L]] ([[User talk:Enigmatic Mr. L|talk]]) 01:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Done and done, Defiant Elements. --[[User:Enigmatic Mr. L|Enigmatic Mr. L]] ([[User talk:Enigmatic Mr. L|talk]]) 01:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
== Why? ==
Why did you delete my talk page? [[User:FyreNWater|FyreNWater]] ([[User talk:FyreNWater|talk]]) 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:39, April 22, 2009

User:Shadowcrest/talk User:Shadowcrest/nav

History of this talk page
Dates contained - 12/9/08 12/9/08 -
3/10/09 -
Personal and off-wiki Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Wiki editing and content related Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


"minor" PA

Check out this PA:
-Zixor (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If that were bannable, pretty much all of the admins would be banned by now. You're welcome to take it up with Sky, but administratively there's nothing I can do about it. --Shadowcrest 15:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
So admins can just up and say stuff like that? Blue Ninjakoopa 15:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For once, I agree with BNK. Zixor (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not mean to say that it's acceptable, but just that if we were to ban our admins for the comments they have made we'd have like 3 admins.
Things I have to say about this:
  • These are all things that I personally find overly aggressive or personal attack-ish.
  • [edit] Also note that I do not necessarily disagree with what was the point of the message, I disagree with the manner it was said in.
  • I was going to look for more but I'm tired and I got bored. So whatever.
  • I am aware that I am not on this list despite others thinking that I should be. I plead the 5th, and if another person wants to go through my contribs and find stuff fine.
Summary: Yeah, I know the admins make personal attacks that (I think) they shouldn't. Hopefully after reading this they'll change. But unless they do something really bad, I'm not going to block them. What would the very few remaining admins do? Take 8 hour shifts? Lol. --Shadowcrest 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow. They're... they're bullies! Blue Ninjakoopa 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I am an organized troll, remember. Organized. Semicolon (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you entirely (with the exception of SilverDragon's edits [7,8, & 9], which I feel were [generally] accurate and constructive assertions). -Likely nothing any admin has done recently would be considered ban-worthy, but this behavior is entirely unacceptable from any user, and they must be reprimanded. -And this is something I think you should do.

I have added in an afterthought in response. --Shadowcrest 17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is virtually no chance that any admin reading this thread would change their ways as a result, as they are all undeniably aware of their poor choices already. Attitudes toward PA's have become disgustingly lax, and must now be renewed. Zixor (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that my edit above isn't intended to be anything even close to a PA. That's my (not very) humorous edit summary when I correct spelling and grammar errors. I can cease that behavior if some find it offensive -- I only meant it in a joking manner. I would guess many other admins feel the same about some of their edit summaries (I think this is roughly the same idea). Miles (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Miles. -As for the link, I would say that "LOLcat" (whatever it might mean....) is less an insult than a fairly harmless assertion of amusement. Assuming it was written along side an actual explanation, I don't think this would constitute a PA. -Zixor (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflictAlright, here's my thoughts on the matter. First, there's a big difference between a slight jab and an attack. The comments above fit into the first category (or at least I felt that they did when I was writing them and apologize if they were interpreted differently). An example of a personal "attack" would be something like this or our recent "friend" African American Ninjakoopa (the vandal account). Now, if every little comment about someone not being able to spell properly was considered a banable offense, Shadowcrest is right that we wouldn't have anyone around. Also, there's a difference between just up and telling some one to "fuck off" (unacceptable) and telling them that you don't accept their apology because you think they will continue until they are blocked (acceptable). You were perfectly fine in saying the latter (I'm not passing judgment on if I agree or disagree with you), but under the logic I see you presenting, you would be in fault as the comment could have been the same as "fuck off." Basically, what it boils down to is a matter of how things are taken by all the users. I really haven't seen any uproar from people about the "learn English" comments, and if there was, then there would be discussion about what we should do about them. As for the edit you originally questioned, my advice would be get over it. If one person on the internet calling you an idiot for one thing you did is a big enough deal to cause you emotional turmoil then you life must be pretty good considering you can spare emotional energy to be bothered by something that trivial. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The difference between a jab and an attack is in severity, not principal: Both are wrong. Though it may at times be quite clear, the severity is generally open to a large amount of interpretation by the readers, and the exact distinction is somewhat unobtainable. (-And, let’s face it, we are all human, and frequently tend ‘’not’’ to assume good faith.) As such, and for other obvious reasons, it would be best simply not to make use of either. Regardless of the size, “every little comment” makes a difference; a negative one, in this case. –and ‘’any’’ amount of uproar is no excuse for this; discussion is happening right now.
Your final two sentences are irrelevant, overly personal, and (most importantly) based on circumstantial and largely imagined evidence.
-Incidentally, when have you ever known me to "get over" anything? I plan to have a nice long chat with you about your own numerous and egregious PA's. -Zixor (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This is weird. Admins doing these things!? This is insane! What do we need to do? SapphireKirby777 ~Behold! -.- 14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid there is nothing we can do -.- Blue Ninjakoopa 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Jab is a loaded word because it implies that an attack (albeit a small one) is taking place in the first place. Better might be to say that there's a difference between attacking another user and being blunt, which, believe it or not, can actually have a positive impact (meaning that it is, in fact, different in principal from an attack). What you're essentially proposing is that we can analyze the action without analyzing the intent (i.e. you're making the blanket statement that anything resembling an attack in character is automatically wrong/in bad faith/whatever you want to call it). The distinction isn't always clear, but there is a difference. – Defiant Elements +talk 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree; though I don't particularly understand what you mean by:"What you're essentially proposing is that we can analyze the action without analyzing the intent (i.e. you're making the blanket statement that anything resembling an attack in character is automatically wrong/in bad faith/whatever you want to call it)."

One can be blunt without being unkind, yes. -Zixor (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You said "The difference between a jab and an attack is in severity, not principal: Both are wrong." "Jabs," if you want to call them that, usually serve one of two purposes. Either they're intended to be funny or they're intended to be blunt. "Attacks" are purposefully aimed at another editor and are inherently non-constructive in nature. By equating "jabs" and "attacks" and saying that both are principally wrong, you're saying that, regardless of intent, anything that resembles an attack to any degree is inherently wrong. Intent matters. – Defiant Elements +talk 17:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that wouldn't be my choice of wording. -We simply need to be more mindful of the negative effects of the particular way we say things. Zixor (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And people need to stop taking things so personally and be mature enough to get over them. There was no problem with any of this until you showed up and started whining about it. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Negative effects of what I say=somebody else's problem. My words aren't meant to be hurtful; believe me, when I want to be hurtful, I can be extraordinarily hurtful. This is my matter-of-fact sometimes called my just-shut-the-hell-up tone. It's candid, blunt, and not very forgiving. I am very aware of what my words will do. I am hoping that my words will affect someone in a way that I desire. The way I desire is that the stop/start doing whatever it is I request. I don't do that by pandering. It is neither useful nor my style. I don't do it by not telling the truth about things. I don't do it by being so soft the message doesn't get across. I do it by telling the truth, telling it plainly, and not pulling any punches if I have to. It's not my problem the way these things are taken. I'm doing my job, and that's what's required of me, and all the other sysops and users on this wiki. Semicolon (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

-Both of your main points are dead wrong, and the root of the problem. Zixor (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to think that justifying arguments is pointless, I'll respond with something simple enough for you to understand: "No, you're wrong." Guess what? I've got as much standing here as you, but as of right now, I'm ahead because we actually took the time to justify our reasoning. Please, if you're going to continue this discussion (which I would prefer you didn't) actually take the time to argue, not just assert that you're right. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I could copy and paste your arguments and add "not" in front of everything; but I don't think that would please either of us.

So, does that make us even? -or, am I ahead? -How exactly do we keep score? : ) Frankly, I don't know why you even bother arguing against me, as our styles are so obviously incompatible. Why not just let my insufficient arguments fail on their own?

-You've already insulted me several times throughout the course of this conversation. -Zixor (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>You don't keep score, I just win.</sarcasm> Your arguments have already failed for being insufficient. I pointed it out so that maybe you would learn something, but you obviously haven't. Oh, and there's no such thing as "incompatible argument styles." That's what someone who can't argue uses as a cop out against someone who can. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Quoth the South Park: "If you would look at my opponent, he is a Turd Sandwich"--"You're a turd sandwich."--"No, if you would excuse me, sir, you are, in fact, a turd sandwich."--"You're a turd sandwich." Semicolon (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a game tbh; there is no score.
My response to this argument and indeed this entire topic is: don't be a dick. Intent is important, but so is what you say.
This is the internet; there is no urgency to pretty much anything that this discussion could pertain to. You don't have to respond in a second like you do in real life. So take the time to make sure you're not coming off as a douchebag. Re-read what you write, especially if you're arguing; if you're angry, go jog around the block a couple times before you post something you shouldn't. Also keep in mind that while you may not think you're being a douchebag and that everyone else is, you might be. If you think you're going to say something slightly jerkish just to get even with people who were jerks before, though of course what you're doing isn't half as bad as what they did: you're being just as much of a jerk as they were, if not escalating the douchebaggery past what it already was. Also keep in mind that being a dick is not the same as being impolite/uncivil; though many dicks are impolite and uncivil, you can be a polite dick too. Keep in mind that what you say and how it comes across matters. (I strongly disagree with what semi wrote above- I believe that if you offend someone, unless it's clear the other person is overreacting then you are at least partially at fault.)
But, intent matters too. What DE and Semi said above about intent being important is true, though being my righteous-crusader carebear self my line is a lot shorter than theirs is. If what I'm saying is assholish but it's a joke and everyone knows that, that's ok. If the comment isn't damn clear that it's supposed to be a joke, you should probably rephrase it. If you make a blunt comment that is construed poorly but you're trying to benefit the wiki/its users/whatever... maybe. This is what administrators have discretion for. Does intent excuse a personal attack? Not necessarily, but it is taken into account. Blanket rules- in this case "any unnecessarily blunt comments are PAs and are a bannable offense"- are always stupid.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is be nice if you can. For people on the dickery side of the argument, just because we won't always ban you for minor asshattery doesn't mean it's cool. Don't be harsh unless you have a seriously good reason. I know being nice is a stretch for some people, but suck it up. For people who are offended by every less-than-perfectly-polite comment, QQ less. Not everyone is going to be perfectly nice and sugar-coated all the time, nor do they have to be. Keep in mind that they may have good intentions behind their slightly dickish comment.
Yeah, I'm overly idealistic and realize that not everyone is going to be nice, no matter what. But it trying to meet the ideal really so horrible? --Shadowcrest 20:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
For clarification: I'm not saying that I'm not culpable if someone get's pissed off because of my comments. I'm saying it's not my responsibility. I don't go around trying to piss people off, I go around and do my job. If someone is offended by something I said, I can understand it. I'm not the most fuzzy admin around here, but the fact of the matter is, it's their problem if they're pissed about it. It's the internet--if you take personally what happens here, then you're in for a load of hurt when you get into the real world. Sh-t happens. Get over it. Semicolon (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, SC. I hope this will help for now, if only a little; and I will take what you've said into consideration. (-btw, what does "QQ" mean?)

-C-Hawk: You continue to insult me at every turn. I have asked you to stop, but you don't. If I'm to understand correctly, this is my problem. -I'll try again to "get over it". -Zixor (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's play a fun little game. Where are the insults? Semicolon (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd badly like to make one against you right now. -Zixor (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving you a chance to present your case. I'm being charitable--really, I am, because at this point most people who know how to argue would already have shut down and stopped listening, assuming you have no idea what you're talking about. Indulge me; what's your reasoning? Where are the insults? Lay your case down. Argue with us. Please. I'm not gonna give you another chance, because I already assume, based on most of your edits, that you have no reasoning, no logic, no case, evidence etc., but I'm willing to revise my assessment this one last time.Semicolon (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That's nice. Did you know that false claims such as accusing him of personal attacks are libel? Additionally, you say above "C-hawk:You continue to insult me...", but the problem is you talked to C-Hawk while replying to semicolon. --Shadowcrest 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Encouraging personal attacks violates NPA, doesn't it? -hopes not- Blue Ninjakoopa 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so, though it could be construed as baiting. --Shadowcrest 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that I intended to end this conversation, which is what you and C-Hawk wanted, but very well. I'm not particularly interested in your charity, nor in indulging you. I suppose I can, however, humor you.

I'm of the mind that people generally don't acknowledge that which they disagree with; therefore, I would think that you are actually aware of what I perceive as an insult, futilely deterring me from pointing it out specifically. -But let's try it out anyway:

You said, "Let's play a fun little game". This is the kind of thing one would say to a child. When I'm treated as a child, I am insulted. This should've been clear from my hostile reaction. Based on examples within this thread, it should also be clear ("based on most of my edits") that my responses are far more intelligible when I am treated with respect and dignity. If you wished to illicit such a response, why did you not treat me in a polite manner? (This would be an example of "incompatible argument styles")

I am frequently accused of "bad" arguing (by C-Hawk), which is a naive view, as it is perhaps merely "different". Simply because I choose not to point out "evidence" or "logic" which can be easily extrapolated based on what I have said, you say that I am without reasoning; when, in fact, I have simply not always yet stated it as such specifically. I would imagine that you already know this, but simply choose to argue your way around it.

At that point, I would perhaps usually elaborate on the point in question, but (when talking to you or C-Hawk) there has usually been a deterrent (insult, tangent, etc.) which I might choose to address first, or ignore entirely as it hardly discounts what I've written.

This is all part of my argument, and while my methods may be in question, there should be none as to whether or not I have any idea what I'm talking about.

-Regarding you comment, SC; I am unsure why you meant by "liability", nor why you thought I was replying to Semi. -Zixor (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were replying to Semi because you quoted something of his in a response you addressed to C.Hawk.
I didn't say liability, I said libel. They're not even close to the same thing. --Shadowcrest 14:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, just no to the argumentation point. Look, there are books on how to reason and argue effectively, and highly established methods and standards for the art. I wasn't a high school debate champion and a standout political science student because I chose not to present evidence or construct logical link stories. Also, don't let your opponents extrapolate the evidence for you. They will either extrapolate it in a way you didn't intend them to or they will (rightly) present the fact that you haven't presented any evidence as their primary counter-argument. This is basic rhetoric. Please, show me the scholarly writing that defends the "style" of argumentation that doesn't use logic, doesn't present evidence, and accepts appeals to emotion and continual reassertation of debunked claims. Oh wait, it doesn't exist. As for things being "inherently" obvious, the burden of proof is still on you under the rules of rhetoric. I don't question that you have an idea of what you are talking about. I question the validity of it. Asserting that you believe something is great. It's a self proving hypothesis. It also does nothing, absolutely nothing, to help the question of if what you believe is true. In the case of the normative argument, showing that X should be true does not prove that it is true. I attack your argumentation methods no longer out of any desire to help you (that ship has long since sailed) but instead to help bolster my position in this by not only providing a strong case against you, but also proving that your case doesn't even have standing in the argument. It's called a multiple win situation. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 06:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to chime in here too, if you don't mind. I said 'Let's play a little game' as a challenge. I don't think you have jack, tbh. And in my defense, you're arguing like a child. That isn't a statement meant to insult; it's factual. You are repeatedly asserting what you say, and providing no evidence. You're saying 'Because' and that's your reasoning. I'm sorry, I think I heard my 7 year old cousin use that last, tbh.
As far as your respect and dignity goes, you're saying that to try and put the blame for your marginal contributions on me. I'm sorry, your edits are your own responsibility. You haven't been abused on this wiki, particularly not at the start, but after some time your edits were called into question because they were repeatedly of the 'nonconstructive' variety, and once again tbh, they were sort of annoying. That means usually that an admin has a chat with you about it, and you get the picture. Clearly, this case has not turned out to be such.
I have been polite to you. I'm being polite right now. I'm not insulting you, I'm just being direct and honest. I said that you were arguing like a child...nyuuhh--because you were arguing like a child--literally. As C-Hawk has thoroughly explained, there are two types of argument styles: one that works and makes sense, and one that doesn't. You're using the one that doesn't. Semicolon (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand what Clarinet Hawk is doing. I misspelled "aggressive." What Clarinet Hawk is doing is perfectly logical. He is trying to prevent embarassing grammar errors. If you look at his contributions, you can see what I mean. SapphireKirby777---I'm a leprechaun! -.- 19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Hope your B-day goes well. --~The Blue Blur~New main in training! 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

School will ruin it, but I appreciate the gesture <3 --Shadowcrest 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's your birthday, happy? ; ) -Zixor (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well so far my day has been relatively horrible, but it wasn't as bad as I expected. Thanks <3 --Shadowcrest 21:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mine is going similarly. : ) -Zixor (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Name?

Something's wrong I think. Check this and this. SapphireKirby777---I'm a leprechaun! -.- 19:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Salad is a shoepuppet of mine used for testing purposes. --Shadowcrest 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to ask, but whats a shoepuppet? SapphireKirby777---I'm a leprechaun! -.- 19:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It's like a sockpuppet, but without the negative connotation of one. You basically just use them to test stuff. --Shadowcrest 19:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. By the way, happy birthday (early b-day). SapphireKirby777---I'm a leprechaun! -.- 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It's today actually, guess I need to update my message... thanks <3 --Shadowcrest 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


less afk pls Blue Ninjakoopa 21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

He can be afk as much as he wants. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. You're slow
  2. He needed to tell me something :P --Shadowcrest 21:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


What happened to your page? 50px (U-T-C) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of comments like this. It is not, (afaik) never has been, and never will be (at least as long as I'm around) against any rules (whether formal or informal) to ask a question. I'm tired of being treated like someone on a pedestal. I'm a person, not a god. (Yes, this may come as a shock considering how amazing I am, but it's true.) --Shadowcrest 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay... But what's that got to do with the original question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blue Blur (talkcontribs) 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It's important enough to me to warrant a noticeable message such as this. --Shadowcrest 20:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess... (Sorry if i'm spamming your page with these images...) Anyways, I g2g in a sec. If you want to, we can continue this convo tommorow. 50px (U-T-C) 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


is bugging out. I can't join. We'll finish this later. Sorry. Semicolon (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem... I should have started homework hours ago anyway. :p --Shadowcrest 23:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That one user again

Here is what you and I put on CH's talk page. I'm putting it here to avoid fragmented conversation: "Hi. I have looked at this user's contributions, and maybe it's because I absoultely HATE Jigglypuff, but it seems to me that he/she is biased for Jigglypuff. I wouldn't call him/her a vandal (that's why I didn't put this on the vandal section) because he/she doesn't replace articles with "GAY GAY GAY" or anything like that, but I do think this user needs a warning or something like that to quit making Jiggly seem like the best character ever no matter what it takes. However, he/she may just be a normal user. I can't tell because I'm biased against YOU FAIL!. That's why I wanted a second opinion. Enigmatic Mr. L (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agf that one. Maybe explain to him that reverting the same comments over and over again isn't allowed, but otherwise he looks like a good-faith editor. --Shadowcrest 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)"

Now things are really out of hand. Just look at the history on the Jigglypuff (SSBB) page. I'd say something to Phayz but the last time I did that he didn't even respond. Maybe you could say something to him for me? Unless of course I was the wrong one in the history of that article, in which case please explain to me what I did wrong. --Enigmatic Mr. L (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry to be a nuisance. But i just felt the attributes article was too long, a have merely reworded it an a shorter, i only removed one piece of information about projectiles, cos that conflicted with an earlier statement. oh and i felt that you needed to explain what you meant by "hurt by brawl's new physics". Phayz (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Engaging in an edit war is highly unproductive. While I don't claim to speak for Shadowcrest, I would suggest that the two of you work this out rather than continuing to merely reverse each other's edits. – Defiant Elements +talk 21:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and done, Defiant Elements. --Enigmatic Mr. L (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Why did you delete my talk page? FyreNWater (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.