User:Defiant Elements

About Me I used to be an active contributor to GuildWiki, but I've been largely inactive there since I helped to establish PvXwiki where I'm a Bureaucrat, though now inactive. I'm also a Sysop on the GuildWarsWiki. I don't really expect to be an active contributor here, but I've got a keen interest in policy, so I may contribute now and again. I am, however, an avid Smasher. I main Jigglypuff and Luigi in SSBM and Metaknight in SSBB (though I prefer SSBM). Oh, and just so we're clear, I decided to main MK well before I knew how broken he was gonna be ;). According to the personality test found here, I'm an "Inspirer". Go figure. For anyone currently using IE, I would advise them to peruse the information contained in this link: Internet Explorer Sucks If you get into a dispute with me, keep these two things in mind: I am always right. If you suspect me of being wrong, refer to point #1 :P This user laments the destruction of the noble WikiDragons (damn WikiKnights!)

Advice to my Fellow SmashWikians Privacy doesn't exist on Wikis; if you don't want any random person who happens to be watching Recent Changes to be able to read and comment on your conversations, take your conversations offwiki. In re RfAs Although RfAs act as poll insofar as they gauge relative levels of support and opposition for a particular candidate, they are not vote counts, they are tools to aid the Bureaucrats. If you want your "vote" to mean anything, it absolutely has to be backed up with some kind of rationale beyond "candidate X is a cool guy." General edit counts are meaningless. Yes, edit counts may demonstrate level of activity and general dedication, but they have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how a candidate will preform. However, certain kinds of edits -- edits to the SmashWiki namespace, for instance -- may be better indicators. Don't create conversation fragments. If someone leaves a query or a comment on your talk page, respond on your talk page. The expectation is that if that person is looking for a response, they'll be keeping an eye on your talk page (either with Recent Changes or with their Watchlist). Deal quietly with vandals (i.e. don't feed the vandals). Vandals are looking for attention, they want to get a rise out of someone. Responding to them, beyond a simple, initial warning, is likely to merely reinforce their desire to vandalize. The more quietly you deal with them, the faster they go away -- they all do eventually.

Chewbacca Defense Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! […] Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

One Equals Two Step 1: $-1/1=1/-1$ Step 2: Taking the square root of both sides: $SQRT(-1/1)=SQRT(1/-1)$ Step 3: Simplifying: $SQRT(-1)/SQRT(1)=SQRT(1)/SQRT(-1)$ Step 4: In other words, $i/1=1/i$ Step 5: Therefore, $i/2=1/(2i)$ Step 6: $i/2+3/(2i)=1/(2i)+3/(2i)$ Step 7: $i(i/2+3/(2i))=i(1/(2i)+3/(2i))$ Step 8: $(i^{2})/2+(3i)/2i=i/(2i)+(3i)/(2i)$ Step 9: $(-1)/2+3/2=1/2+3/2$ Step 10: and this shows that $1=2.$

Notes to Self Don't argue with zealots Don't argue with idiots Definitely don't argue with idiotic zealots Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean that they're zealots But it definitely doesn't rule out the possibility that they're idiots.

References "Product, Process, Policy" "Use Common Sense" "Don't Be a Fanatic" "Follow Consensus, Not Policy" "Interpret All Rules" "No Excessive Literalism" "Polls are Evil" "Voting is a Tool" "Polling is not a Substitute for Discussion" "Gaming the system" "Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to Illustrate a Point" List of logical fallacies

Contact Information MSN Messenger BTA258@hotmail.com Email BTA258@gmail.com IRC Server: irc.gamesurge.net Channel: #gww