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!

sigh
"Ish doesn't seem to realize that most want the changes in Headers and he wants to leave things as they are..." Please go back and read the last paragraph in the post that you are referring to. I specifically state that "I will not fight consensus" because I can set the style however I want with personal CSS. So yes, I do realize that other people may not hold the same opinions as me and will still want the changes as-is. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 16:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When your actual comment to me, is viewed as if you're not for the change at all? You didn't need to write any of that, at least in the way you wrote. A better approach would have been... "While I know the community agrees with the changes, I do not agree with them and this won't bother me, due to the facts that I would make my own changes in the css." It would have appeared less "negative"... So I'm sorry, but I'm not going to change my view for you. Unless you can reword your statement better, then I would reword that. I'm not trying to be hostile about it, but it's how I view your comments - hence the word "seem"... Ariyen 17:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So he's not allowed to disagree with a change? To me it seems like he put forth the reasons why, while still seeming to be a bit open. "My concern", "I guess I feel", "Maybe", "I don't know" all seem like phrases that indicate he's willing to consider other povs. --JonTheMon 17:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, people are allowed, but it's the way things are written that can be viewed as negative, etc. I was just saying that I'd rather it have been written in a better way. As it came off to me being worse than that it may want to have been "viewed/seemed". That part didn't bother me, it was the latter that made it appear worse than what I feel he was trying to say. Basically, this "I won't fight against consensus, though, since I can set what I want in my personal CSS anyway." was really not necessary. No one was asking anyone to fight against consensus. Consensus, imo, should be when the majority agrees - not everyone. Hence, the tone of that threw me to being negative... If he felt the need in saying that - as i said, there were better ways. I'm glad for opinions, just not when negative/not needed comments are thrown in there as those (like the comment I mentioned) tend to appear immature and that's a negative tone to me... Ariyen 17:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That phrase can also be read as "I kinda don't like it, but I'm willing to be on the 'losing' end of this argument since that kind of visual appearance varies person-by-person" or "I realize that a lot of others might like this, but it isn't my cup of tea. Since I can make my own brew, go ahead and change the pot". --JonTheMon 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * True it can be, but it wasn't read like that to me, because even if it's "Kinda" in your opinion, it's mostly immature in mine and "can" doesn't justify how it is read to me. Sorry if you disagree, but it was(and I've dealt with a lot of immature people online and in real life to know) to me pretty much an immature type sentence. That's my opinion and I'm not trying to be a hypocrite about it, but I feel if people have a problem with Mendel's responses (Which I do and easily state that more so in irc - pms, etc.)then they should look at the other side as well. I don't agree with either of them doing what they've been doing, but I don't appreciate people trying to get after me in irc and on here, due to me pointing out the obvious with Ish as well. All I've seen is Mendel don't do this, don't do that. When he's trying to get things changed, done. He does push too much, which you've seen my msg to him and that's one side of the coin. However, the other side of the coin is one backing off a lot in most discussions, not particularly Headers, but other discussions and most times doesn't respond at all, which can really irritate people. Especially, when someone is asking for a simple response. Doesn't hurt to say yes or no or a small sentence or two. I do admit that I do like the try some. I'd just would like people to work more as a team to get things done. Suggest advice, etc., if someone wants to help. After all, being negative in any response, even if meaning well... can hurt and cause disruption, issues, etc. Ariyen 21:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do understand you better after this explanation. --◄mendel► 23:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It says something about you
That I'm starting to recognise your IP whenever you forget to log in. --El_Nazgir 15:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I have on it so far to recognize this account. It hasn't changed in over a year or so. 72.148.31.114 19:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why can't you just check the box that says "Keep me logged in"? &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 20:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cause of husband. He uses the wikis as well and I usually leave an opening, in case he'd ever want to join. Also, it helps me to remember passwords. 72.148.31.114 20:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you want the IP contributions merged with your account, if that were possible? --◄mendel► 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. 72.148.31.114 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You could always have 2 firefox sessions, so that there's one that you're logged in to. No clue if you can merge IP contribs, I doubt it, though --  Random Time  23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't use FireFox... I use Chrome. Ariyen 23:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=create+chrome+profile &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 01:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting Link. However, the links I checked out in google doesn't seem promising. I just tried it a while ago and it did not work for me. While there is a "remember log-in", it doesn't seem to keep the person logged in. Also, I don't do the remember log-in due to security breaches, etc. that I've seen happen and I'm not fond of it. As so many can use the same pw for many things, if it's used at one place and chrome, etc. remembers it and the "hacker" can get that pw... finds out it can get that hacker into more places, etc. It could do some damage. I don't use a lot of passwords for the countless sites that I do visit, join, etc. So I prefer this chrome to not save it. Especially, having heard of security breaches, etc., soo many times in browsers even in Chrome. There are reasons like that as to why I can forget to log-in or don't care if I am logged in or not to do some things. Cause either way I'd do edits. I just don't want my pws compromised, (as has happened many times in the past) and I'd rather hope that people could deal with my editing as an Ip, when I don't log in for some reason. Ariyen 01:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Chrome use the same profile for all users on a PC by default?!? --◄mendel► 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ariyen, I'm talking about the "Keep me logged in" checkbox that's underneath the login form on the wiki itself, NOT the "Remember password" feature of your browser. All this does is set your login cookie to never expire, so that you are always logged in from that computer.  The cookie doesn't store your password, only a randomly generated session ID.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 02:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bah, I think I see the confusion now. The checkbox actually says "Remember my login on this computer", but what it means is simply "Keep me logged in."  It's not going to store your password anywhere, it's just going to set the cookie to never expire like I explained above.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mendel, yes it does use the same profile for all users by default. Dr, thank you for understanding my confusion and explaining it better. Since, it doesn't "Store" the pw. I'll try it. I can tell husband to log me out, if he uses it on my or his computer (we both use chrome) and wants to make an edit (which is rare). Ariyen 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really such a bad thing if your husband edits using your account? We'll always know it was either you or him. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If he edits using Ari's IP we'll think it's her, anyway. --◄mendel► 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It says something about me
That every minor remark or thing I say causes some big and serious discussion :P --El_Nazgir 14:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * you got nothin. ∵Scythe∵ 21:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to stop
and just archive you, get off my talk page. ∵Scythe∵ 03:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, but if you expect me to get off your's? Stay off mine and stop talking about me - this includes irc and your message from yesterday. You don't know me. You only know yourself. Sorry, you can't accept anyone who tries to help you. However, don't expect anyone to accept your help, when you can't do the same. Coming on here telling me off was not a good thing to do, calling me a hypocrite is what I consider a personal attack. I have never called you a name as you only took things out of proportion claiming that things were all about you. Get over yourself and grow up. Ariyen 03:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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)