User talk:Aludeni

 Personal Log  Archive Date: 10110.3 

♥ 2010 ♥  ♥ Jan/Feb 2011 ♥

 [ '''♥ 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!

wb
Welcome back! — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hoping to continue and finish the unique weapons to match the stub (rather what they're all suppose to be). I noticed some that needed fixing, but didn't have the stub. Ariyen 08:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

sigh again
Your comment on RT's talk page is misplaced. You inserted it between two existing posts, the first by mendel and the second Scythe's response to it. Now it looks like Scythe is responding to you, not to mendel. That's why I moved it, so that the existing conversation flow (that was there long before your post) would not be interrupted. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 19:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, it was written before Scythe. I don't know why the page didn't save, but it didn't and so it's saved now. I posted the additional comments I had with it in an email to randomtime. I just put it where it was written to make better "sense" than to be after the other nonsense that I see and be like "what?". I didn't want to reword. Ariyen 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter when you wrote it, or even when you posted it. Where you placed it is the issue, because it broke the existing conversation's flow from mendel to Scythe.  It's nothing personal against you; I moved your comment simply to restore the original conversation.  I would do (and have done) the same thing regardless of who "inserted" the flow-breaking post.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 20:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me word it a different way: The point is that the timestamps on the posts don't really matter, it's the flow or the threading that was broken by your post. Your and mendel's posts are both responses to RT's post.  Yours has a later timestamp than mendel's, so it should go below his.  Fine.
 * The problem is that you inserted your post at a point that completely broke the threading of replies to mendel's post. Your post (and any thread that might follow from it) should be placed below the entirety of the thread that started from mendel's post.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 20:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thing about it is - The posts below scythe's are responses to his and mendel's. There's really sadly no good place to post it. I believe simply that everyone would know by scythe's style and those that follow that it's to mendels. it usually happens in discussions. Ariyen 20:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No no no... there IS a good place to put it, and that is exactly where I said. Here, let me demonstrate for you - the following box shows a simple example of an initial post and 2 responses.

* Hi, I'm the original poster. * I'm the first responder. * I'm the second responder.


 * If I want to respond to the "first responder," then I place my post under his, like so.

* Hi, I'm the original poster. * I'm the first responder. * I'm responding to the first responder. * I'm the second responder.


 * It's possible that an entire conversation could take place in response to the first responder, with no replies to the second responder.

* Hi, I'm the original poster. * I'm the first responder. * I'm responding to the first responder. * I'm responding to the first responder's responder. * Wait, what's going on here? * I'm also responding to the first responder's responder. * I am a banana. * /me eats the banana * Wah! I have been et! * I'm the second responder. [edit] I am so lonely.


 * Etc. Threading responses like this makes it very clear who is responding to what.  So you see, the only logical place for your post is where I had initially moved it to.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly see that on any wiki. so many respond to different posts on down the line. It gets confusing. Ariyen 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the entire bloody point of indenting your post underneath the post you're replying to! So that you can follow separate "threads" of conversation under a topic.  Why can't you understand this?  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, when I did post (After realizing the damn thing didn't post) I was eced aka (someone else) thing so I copied and pasted where it was at and saved it. I was not about to redo my post at the time and I'm still not about to. Ariyen 23:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need to redo it. Just let it be moved. Concede or perish. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 00:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ariyen, please move your post to where it should be, to remain consistent with what Dr. Ishmael listed above, which are the correct posting standards for this wiki. Jink  01:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I left it, where it was edited at. I didn't add things that seemed to try to derail the conversation nor was it anything anyone would have added to. Moving it below a lot of other edits that were added after it was added, seems pointless. Either remove it entirely (it's in history and points still made), or continue a fuss that's not going to get anywhere. Ariyen 01:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, single me out all you want ish, but I have seen others comment below other comments in with other comments and those not be moved, etc. even on here. I wrote a comment to Randomtime, If anyone wanted to have respond to mine. they could bring it here as any response at all would not have been towards Randomtime. It was an optimistic view and I have no doubts that if there were responses, it'd been on my views - not to Randomtime. So, I placed it where I did for many reasons. I'm sorry no one can see this and are angered at me not "doing" the discussion the way it "should". There's nothing on here of user talk and how it should be done. Nothing on reverts, etc. on user talks either. Ariyen 02:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The ONLY reason I am "singling you out" is because you went to the trouble of reverting a simple maintenance edit that had absolutely no impact on the actual content of your post. If anything, it helped your post by making it more prominent, instead of being sandwiched into the middle of an existing conversation.
 * Y'know, I thought I had learned a lesson from the last time I tangled with you, but apparently I was wrong. Instead of just saying, "I know what I'm doing," I tried not once, but twice to give you a clear explanation of why I moved your post.  Yet you continue to whine about it.  So I guess I learned another lesson - don't bother giving Ariyen an explanation, because she still won't listen to it.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 02:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to whine. It's just I don't believe in editing or moving another's comment out of the place they had it at. While I can understand your way, I disagree in that no matter where it's at that it'd throw the conversation off course. It's just better off to leave some things alone in a talk. As I have said above, if someone had an issue with the actual message - they could bring it here easier than try to talk of it there. Problem solved. It's not difficult, doesn't have to be. Ariyen 22:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ariyen, we did bring it here, and you are making it very difficult. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 02:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys only brought the issue that I reverted a "mechanical" change that didn't need nor should have happened, because it was not necessary nor needed nor would it have helped anything, just make things more confusing. Sure I can see it to "Stand out", but perhaps someone may not want that. Basically, if I wanted the comment to be "prominent" - I'd placed it where Ish did. The issue it's self is not about the comment. See what I was meaning is comments here on the comment, not what was done to it. Ariyen 02:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And you still don't get it. I'm not going to restate everything I've said above, so I'll just have to be blunt: You are wrong.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 04:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, it is okay to move someone's message to a different spot, because it's "preferred" to be "prominent". How ironic, because that's hurting the user in assuming good faith in yourself and them to leave things alone and make a bit confusing mess aka not assuming good faith and showing they're stupid for where they put it. Not assuming that they had intentions and reasons to put it where they did. They may not have wanted it out in the open that could cause all the "drama" that's being created now, because they had preferred to place it where it was to be directly to one person and not mis-assumed to be directed at another, and misused with the colons. I may not be right, but I'm not entirely wrong either. Ariyen 05:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are entirely wrong. If you reverted the edit on your own talk page we probably wouldn't care, but it was in a discussion between multiple users on someone else's page. Dr ishmael moved your comment out of convenience to other users, not just you. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 05:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if one didn't want it to be a "prominent" or an inconvenience to be out in the open, not clear idea of who to, etc. cause as I said. I wasn't about to edit the msg. and I didn't want it to cause confusion as to where it was moved to. well, it would have no doubt. Whether you few believe it or not. Ariyen 05:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ariyen, consider this:

Initial chat I like fruit! Alice 1:00
 * I like Bananas! Bob 2:00
 * Don't like fruit you have to peel, strawberries are the thing! Cindy 3:00
 * We used to have strawberries for dinner every day in summer! Dave 4:00

Now Elaine wants to reply to Bob that she likes banana split ice cream. Where should the reply go?

Option 1 I like fruit! Alice 1:00
 * I like Bananas! Bob 2:00
 * Don't like fruit you have to peel, strawberries are the thing! Cindy 3:00
 * Bananas and ice cream go well together, banana split is my favorite dessert! Elaine 5:00
 * We used to have strawberries for dinner every day in summer! Dave 4:00

Option 2 I like fruit! Alice 1:00
 * I like Bananas! Bob 2:00
 * Don't like fruit you have to peel, strawberries are the thing! Cindy 3:00
 * We used to have strawberries for dinner every day in summer! Dave 4:00
 * Bananas and ice cream go well together, banana split is my favorite dessert! Elaine 5:00

Then consider where a reply to Elaine would be placed:

Option 1.1 I like fruit! Alice 1:00
 * I like Bananas! Bob 2:00
 * Don't like fruit you have to peel, strawberries are the thing! Cindy 3:00
 * Bananas and ice cream go well together, banana split is my favorite dessert! Elaine 5:00
 * We used to have strawberries for dinner every day in summer! Dave 4:00
 * Yeah, ice cream is nice with all kinds of fruit! Alice 6:00

Option 1.2 I like fruit! Alice 1:00
 * I like Bananas! Bob 2:00
 * Don't like fruit you have to peel, strawberries are the thing! Cindy 3:00
 * Bananas and ice cream go well together, banana split is my favorite dessert! Elaine 5:00
 * Yeah, ice cream is nice with all kinds of fruit! Alice 6:00
 * We used to have strawberries for dinner every day in summer! Dave 4:00

Option 2.1 I like fruit! Alice 1:00
 * I like Bananas! Bob 2:00
 * Don't like fruit you have to peel, strawberries are the thing! Cindy 3:00
 * We used to have strawberries for dinner every day in summer! Dave 4:00
 * Bananas and ice cream go well together, banana split is my favorite dessert! Elaine 5:00
 * Yeah, ice cream is nice with all kinds of fruit! Alice 6:00

In my opinion, option 2.1. is the one that makes it most clear by the indentations who replied to whom, and that's the way we have traditionally used indentations here. It is also the way indentations are used in all comment/discussion systems that have more than one level. Which option do you prefer? Why? --◄mendel► 08:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another situation:

Initial chat Riker is fetching! Alice 7:00
 * Picard is much more handsome! Bob 8:00
 * Worf is much more manly! Cindy 9:00

Now Dave wants to reply to Bob. Where should the reply go?

Option 3 Riker is fetching! Alice 7:00
 * Picard is much more handsome! Bob 8:00
 * He's half bald! Nobody likes bald guys! Dave 10:00
 * Worf is much more manly! Cindy 9:00

Option 4 Riker is fetching! Alice 7:00
 * Picard is much more handsome! Bob 8:00
 * Worf is much more manly! Cindy 9:00
 * He's half bald! Nobody likes bald guys! Dave 10:00

And then consider what should have happened if Dave had replied first, and Cindy second - the indents should really be the same in both cases, right? --◄mendel► 08:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

[ Oh, how I love the sweet taste of irony.]
"I don't agree with a third person interrupting giving their opinion that's not entirely accurate"

&mdash;Dr Ishmael 04:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean via those who need to hash things out aka you and Mendel - El and Mendel. The ones inquiring another and yet you've got a few who jump in to speak. Grant it, It's okay with those who knows enough and gets enough of what the questioner is after to answer and helps them, but when one jumps in being I don't like this or I/we don't agree.... that's not helpful. I agree with El Nazgir, you can be helpful too much. You can also be a hindrance when trying to help. Hence, leaving some things alone is better than being overly helpful and having it bite. Ariyen 04:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had a problem with my comment, why did you not take it straight to my talk? But take it upon yourself to move my comment? That's what I find offensive and why I reverted. I didn't like you taking upon yourself to move my comment, without mentioning it here first, but moving it and then mentioning it, when I'm already mad about it being moving, not understanding your motives, behind your "maintenance" edit, cause what was the "maintenance" about really? Just seemed like "Oh, I don't like this comment there. I'm going to move it myself and not give them a chance to move it or see if they'd want me to move it, etc." Sure, you're being bold, but that is not Assuming good faith on me in the first place. Just taking it upon yourself to do whatever you want. that is my issue with you and has been. I can agree that there's a few more here that'd agree with me. See I know you may mean well, but you seem to overstep your boundaries and due to people supporting you, you don't get flack, but when so few do give you flack. It seems to me that you whine, complain, and get your supporters to back you up. See, this is part of the issues with you. We've done discussed the issues with mendel. It's your turn. Why do you seem to "mother" this wiki? It's not just your wiki, and I'd rather see you respect people more. I don't feel respected from you from the first edit I made a while back that you "threatened" me with your "bot edits", when you could have simply asked me why I did that in the first place and asked if I could just revert myself and stated that you have other plans. Simple, but no you started off in a harsh tone and had that threat involved. I know you're a great editor here and you're needed, but I'd love it if you could work with others better and at least give a bit more agf as well as respect. Ariyen 09:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not think that you would be offended by someone simply moving your comment to where it belongs. Frankly, I was surprised when you reverted me so vehemently, and I am completely baffled as to why you are dragging this out so long.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 14:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)