User talk:Aludeni

 Personal Log  Archive Date: 10110.3 

♥ 2010 ♥

 [ '''♥ Please leave a message at the bottom. ♥''' ]   Talk page rules:
 * 1) - If you want to first, do it on an original enjoyable way.
 * 2) - Please don't use personal attacks, either against me or anyone else.
 * 3) - Don't edit or delete comments, unless you spot a typo in your own message.
 * 4) - Always sign your posts!

and this is apparently due to the fact that [Nick] has nothing else to do with his life.
That edit made me lol. Well done! — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That last Dialogue was hard to do. Ariyen 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is awesome. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ariyen 07:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Widget4you
To the right. The colors can be adjusted. --◄mendel► 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC) & 21:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How can the colors be adjusted? 72.148.31.114 22:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The documentation for the Twitter widget is at Widget:Twitter, and it points you to http://www.mediawikiwidgets.org/Twitter (we could use an interwiki link for that wiki, btw). There are 5 color parameters you can use, either with hex triplets (the # colors) or color names. --◄mendel► 00:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

== I am horribly ashamed of myself. But Then Again, I can blaim other people for my failiure, like as two two friends from highschool I met on the train today, or the housemate party wich gave me a hang ==

-over. But that doesn't stop me from congratulating you, wich makes this the first header in a way to long time.... CONGRATULATIONS!!! Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 17:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Is it for the birthday congrats or is it something I'm missing... ? Ariyen 18:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is birthday related. Also, happy birthday :> --Vipermagi 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just Arnout's way of saying happy birthday, which I also say. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 19:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, Thank you both. :-) Ariyen 19:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Happy Birthday (My present to you is that I am completely avoiding a long and pointless, meandering header, that confuses and digresses. Instead, I present you with a long and pointless, meandering parenthetical, run-on sentence, that probably also confuses, and yet certainly digresses, and continues far past its originally intended length, just for the sake of seeing how long it can get without thanking Kormir that it's not in German, since that would mean we would still be waiting for a verb to appear sometime around...now.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) Ariyen 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Canthan New Year
Could you explain why you reverted my edits? Segick 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I didn't like the show hide at all. Not beneficial for an event page. 2. The pig was an item given during the 2008 event. I fixed that again. And was working on the external links at the time I reverted you. It kept showing up your pages and not the links of which I preferred like 2007 compared to the way it was, which was like [] and an arrow. Not that easy to click on. Ariyen 20:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I don't think my edits affected the external links or the show/hide at all, though I agree that the show/hide is kind of ugly. I think the page had an edit conflict or something and it saved my version but not yours so you thought I had reverted you when you didn't see the changes. That would explain why you're talking about things I never edited. N Segick Sig.jpg Segick 20:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Help!
I need to figure out how I can get chrome to refresh better. :-( Some pages are great, but others it keeps giving me an older version! Aggravating... Especially, when like above... It causes issues. I prefer that to not happen again, so I ask you guys to please not jump down my throat. Not something I can truly fix as Ie is broken, Firefox is worse... and the others... I easily crash them... Laptop does better, but it's still... dead... Anything helpful would be nice! Ariyen 20:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ctrl+f5 is the hotkey in both chrome and FF to refresh the page and dump the cached version of it, try that. If that doesn't work, go into options -> under the hood -> Privacy -> clear browsing data and dump everything if you want, but you should only need cookies + cache.  If that doesn't work try playing around with the "use DSN pre-fetching" toggle.  If none of that helps...O.O &mdash;  Scythe   20:25, 6 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Sorrows Furnace
Is easy. You can h/h it. Also, you might want to go and get the black moa egg before doing the last quest. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 09:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the stuff to hatch it, but haven't finished. Just waiting on husband as I tried the hero hence with that stupid Alkar. -.- the only one I lack out of the four and the same one he lacks. Ariyen 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * okies. Just that you are aware of the facts. I h/h it, but 6 heroes is better then 3/4. Have fun. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 18:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

noinclude
It's not necessary to wrap the categories with &lt;noinclude> when the page is not transcluded anywhere else. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 14:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * doesn't hurt to have it there, in case it might be used elsewhere. Just a thought. 72.148.31.114 17:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While it might not hurt, it does cost you time (esp. if you are suffering server delays, as I have been recently). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh. Okay. I have noticed something. There's inconsistency with like "Lead attack" being redirected from "Lead Attack" and having others that have their names as like "Melee Attack"... Shouldn't they all be Capital and then little letters? or Capital Capital? With many having that as secondary - has me curious ... Ariyen 17:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

GW:ULC
Not everyone (including myself) has always remembered (or known) to follow them. In some cases, we might have outgrown the style. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead attack and lead attack link the same. However, Pogahn Passage does not link the same as Pogahn passage. The rule says, "When in doubt, use lower case. This includes in article headings, article titles, and category names."
 * I understand that, but the actual information is on Lead attack and not Lead Attack, while you have information on Melee Attack. I just want to known if I should make those consistent after one another - ones using the same word "attack" as secondary or not... If I should/could - which way? Ariyen 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The guideline is, when in doubt, use lower case (I have my suspicions about that rule, but that's a different story). The longstanding convention is to capitalize the way that ANet does for official terms so, Lead Attack and Melee Attack. As I say, I don't believe everyone is aware of the conventions and those that are don't always remember to follow them.


 * I would say it's probably worth discussing before we change the articles. On the other hand, you might boldly update/tag following a clear convention and it's possible the rest of us will follow. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In game, Lead attack is showing up as Lead Attack... however Lead Attack redirects to Lead attack, which imo is incorrect... Same with Dual and offhand on here... I just can't correct that, because the redirects are backwards. Ariyen 18:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If you actually look at Use lower case, it tells you to capitalize proper names of items and skills. A "lead attack" is not a skill, it's a type of skill, and thus should not be capitalized. (On the talk page of the policiy is a similar discussion re: not captalizing "warrior" etc.) We use lower case here so you can use the page title in a sentence normally and just add brackets to make it link. --◄mendel► 18:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

categories in templates
Why are you removing the categories from all the templates? That's how we've always done that. Please stop. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 18:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * removing the include only from templates adding them to actual pages. Templates should be consistent with each other, imo. Also, I like the pages having the actual categories on them. I don't see why some pages do have cagetories, while others use templates for that. Consistency is my reasoning. Ariyen 18:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're meddling in something that you don't fully understand. We have those categories in the navigation templates so that if we create a new page that belongs in the same category, we just include the navbox and presto! the page is already in the appropriate category.  Your current campaign for "consistency" isn't really contributing anything to the wiki.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why not have the infoboxes do that instead? Why have two different templates - put some things in some categories? Like infobox puts some things in categories, while other things don't get that. Then you have a nav box doing the same? I understand, but It's really not making much sense and seems more like a mess imo. Ariyen 18:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * *sigh* As I said, you don't understand. We have our reasons for keeping those categories in the navboxes and/or infoboxes, and you're just screwing things up.  I'm going to bot-revert everything you've done later today.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And ruin consistency with templates and pages. It was broken, because templates don't always add to pages - Found that out with PI, you can't learn that - can you? It still showed up in wanted categories. It can cause issues actually more than realized, but whatever. I think you'd better off bringing this to a public talk page and let others have a say. See which one of us - they'd agree with. Ariyen 18:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The reason that we want categories to be in templates is so that no one has to remember to place them on the article. When they are done manually, people often use the wrong cats. In some cases, the cats were created after an info box was, so we haven't caught up yet.

Whether the category should be placed in an info box or in a template is sometimes a matter of art rather than science; it's easier to see what works generally after watching how it works successfully a few times.

For now, could you hold off removing categories from templates and info boxes? If you see that an article is missing one, go ahead and manually tag it...and someone will (eventually) catch it and fix the issue with the template and/or info box. After you've seen that done 2-3 times, I think you will see why automatic-tagging is better than manual. (Well, I think it took me 5-8 times before it made sense to me, but you get the idea).

In other words, trust us that there's a very good reason why we've done it that way for so long. And I will do my best to try to explain why...until it makes sense to you, too. Does that work for you? — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 19:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What doesn't make sense to me is having templates that could do the categories - not do them. So, why have some do them and not all? If someone puts a cat. in the wrong place, another can always fix that. Most pages are created and done for. I don't see a problem with it. However, it seems like we want to call some people Incompetent. I'd rather "have good faith" and get it to be more "friendly" and say you can edit and learn. Else, you'd have less people want to edit. Ariyen 19:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ariyen, you've now got 2 experienced editors telling you to leave things the way they are. Please don't drag this out any more.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 19:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have brought it to the Community portal to let more experienced editors comment. Also, to let you two understand why I did those changes, before you go "reverting". Ariyen 19:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * The idea is that someone won't put a cat in the wrong place b/c most of them should be done automatically. (Ish's current work is making this become a reality.) I'm not calling anyone incompetent &mdash; catting is actually really, really, difficult. It takes time to setup correctly and anyone unfamiliar with the details (and even those familiar) can easily make a mistake.


 * Sometimes on a wiki, there's conflict between keeping the wiki self-sustaining and making things easy to edit. The main page is a good example: we don't allow anyone to edit it except sysops. Nicholas the Traveler on GWW is another good example: as a vandal target, it's restricted to registered users only. In both cases, the cost of well-intentioned error (or of vandalism) is too high, so we make the pages harder to edit in order to do the best thing for the wiki.


 * Categorization is similar: at the cost of making them harder to adjust, we protect the overall categorization of the entire wiki.


 * So, I'm asking, until you can more easily see why GWiki and GWW have done it this way for so long, to assume good faith and to leave things as they were. Later, when you see why so many veterans think this works better, you can re-open the debate if you still think manual categorization would be better. Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 19:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning, but I hope if you would look at CP. You could see mine. As I'd like to use a nav or two to help me with some of my titles, but I'd raher not have the cat on any of my pages. That would not be so "simple", if they exist in those navs. I hope you can understand why I went bold and did my changes. Ariyen 19:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I understand, Ariyen. What I'm saying is that I strongly disagree. There are very good reasons why templates and info boxes are setup as they are and I think we should leave them alone until/unless there's widespread agreement that the community prefers a different strategy. We use autocat via templates in a lot of places; there's no urgency to changing them all until there's a consensus. And, there's a lot of other things worth working on that are actually missing or broken. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While not urgent... It kinda of dampens my wanting to create character templates, etc. with some of these navs, because the will Include these pages into the categories and I don't want that. Even if you disagree with the changes, etc. I feel it's more needed, because it hurts the potential uses of the navs. Also, I prefer no include on some pages that could most likely be used as transparent on some user pages. The only reason I feel this discussion is needed, is also to HELP this community grow and get more users here to want to edit and add to their userspace, etc. any type of activity would be helpful... I'm just wishing it wasn't shot down without fulling being understood.  Basically, I'm asking all and anyone to look at "both sides" of the "coin". before making such a hasty decision or judgement of "we don't want this" or "we don't want that". I'm also not seeing the reason why we don't. Except that it's always been done this way or that way... Things can change and I like the fact of bringing in ideas, etc. a good challenge.

Didn't you say so yourself that we could use some challenges and changes? Ariyen 19:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think itis not fair to belittle Ariyen's experience as "not veteran" when she has (as Kaisha) close to 2000 edits on gww over a 6-month period.
 * The point I've pondered myself and that requires ugly workarounds is that a template used for presentation (an infobox or a navbox) is also used for page logic, which means that if you want just the presentation and not the logic, a kludge is required.
 * If you feel that anything we're doing by tradition does not deserve to be brought up for discussion, then change is not possible; you also seem to demand that a contributor step back from a discussion before matters have been satisfactorily explained. The argument "there's other stuff that needs doing" doesn't hold water, because our editors are not employees, and they will do what they're motivated to do, and if it makes the wiki better, it's perfectly ok to leave other things by the wayside for others to do (or motivate doing). Also, I don't think a category system is hard to explain. --◄mendel► 21:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mendel: once again, you are attributing ideas to me that have nothing to do with what I wrote. Or nitpicking poor phrasing on my part and ignoring the key idea.


 * Ariyen: I don't believe I actually said or implied what Mendel seems to think I have. However, if I came across as belittling your idea or your efforts, I apologize. That was not my intent. The seriousness with which I hold your views can be measured in no small part by effort I have spent in response; if I didn't respect them or you, I wouldn't bother taking the taking the time. Again, I am sorry if anything I said made you feel bad. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)