User talk:Aludeni/Archive 2011

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)
 * Well, then read my post as pointing out areas where you might want to add clarification, please? ;) --◄mendel► 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

GW:YAV. That is all.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 22:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hiya
Hey, I saw that you offered to team up for some missions on my talk page, but I guess you haven't seen my reply yet so I figured I'd post here. I think that's a great idea, maybe I could help with some of your titles. Message me in game whenever (character names are in my profile). -- Kirbman 20:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That'd be cool. Hopefully, my husband can come along as well. :-) (Ig: Ariyen Dynal . his is Clayton w/same last name.) 72.148.31.114 23:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was bored at school
So I decided to browse around doing random stuff after doing things like checking my mail and RC here, and I ended up in your contributions. I never noticed that you giving me support on my RFA was your second edit on the wiki, lol. So, eh, tanks. Lots of 'em. Heading towards your base to kill your dudes (while you're not noticing of course, according to the meme). This is kinda becoming spam now isn't it? sorry 'bout that. However, I have been complimented on my non-sequiture random nonsense spouting before, so I hope you like it. --El_Nazgir 10:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, I'm much better then you at that. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 11:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And Giga pwns you both. :P &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I was more of a lurker on gw wikia for a while. Ariyen 15:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I am more of an IRC nonsense man, I think it's actually the first time I spouted out random nonsense on the wiki itself. @Ariyen: So when you saw my RFA, you had this compelling urge to just upload a sig pic and vote for me? :P --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 17:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't recall how long I have been lurking, but I agreed with a lot of your comments, changes, etc.. As I had looked up your contributes and other things, before I decided to give a voice. :-) 72.148.31.114 16:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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 IshmaelDiablo_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 IshmaelDiablo_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)

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 thethreading 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 IshmaelDiablo_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. Ariyen22:14, 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 IshmaelDiablo_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. Ariyen01:11, 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)
 * Me? You kept it up too, instead of asking why. Anywho, amybe now you know why I'm offended. It's not the first time I got offended by you. Just like you get offended by people doing things too. I just prefer us all to work as a team by allowing and asking, w/out assuming and to consider things more by getting involved and discussing out things that bother us. I did get several of my curiousities settled though with the convos above and I can see how you all work... Which is why I left the msg I did. Yes, I got offended by you moving my post, instead of asking why I placed it there or giving me a chance to fix it, etc... I am offended that you took it to my talk page after I reverted you out of pure spit, because I was still offended from the first move. This offense was in how you brought it to my talk... Like you were scolding a child, instead of asking first... Is that really assuming good faith to a user, in other words, should I assume good faith in you, when I feel like i'm being scolded, when I didn't get a "chance" to do something about a mistake I may have made and didn't see for quite sometime. Ariyen 14:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm getting tired of people dragging out AGF against me lately. It doesn't apply to this issue because there shouldn't be any assumptions about my edit at all.  The comment was in the wrong place, I moved it to the right place, q.e.d.  There's no question about my intentions or a possible difference of opinion (even though mendel's extended rhetorical question above might suggest otherwise).
 * If anything, you are the one who failed to apply AGF to my edit. &mdash;Dr IshmaelDiablo_the_chicken.gif 14:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There we go again with the "you are the one who failed". No, dear sir, you failed by not asking or going "hey, was this intended or why wasn't it moved here?" Allowing either me to move it or by making sure that I wouldn't be offended by your moving it. Cause to me moving it without even saying something on the talk in the first place - was in the wrong. But whatever, you get to do anything you want - even when questioned, cause you're never wrong. You don't question people as to why something was in the wrong place. you just move it and go about your business not caring that it could cause the effects that it did. The hostility from me, the offensiveness that when I didn't see what I did was in Error. I moved it back. you scold me. Is that any way to treat members here by being negative and scolding, when you should have just asked or been polite in the first place so that there would be no negative? Is it? Would you have liked another to fix your error that you didn't think was wrong and you redo it, not seeing still and get scolded? would you have wanted someone to speak on your talk first so you could have the privileged of fixing? For every action, there's a reaction. While kind it was in you moving it, to me it was a bit of a selfish act and demeanors the ability for another to fix their own mistakes and learn from them. Ariyen 15:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing I like is when someone would be kind enough to go, this was a mistake, but I fixed it for you - in a kind manner. In that being on edits that clearly one doesn't know what they're doing. Or if one would bring it to my attention in the first place in a kind manner so that I could fix it or be like "I'm cool with you moving, fixing, etc." More so, this would also be great towards those who are clearly smart enough to know better on some things. Ariyen 15:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When performing "maintenance edits," most of us (not just me!) don't see a need to inform the affected user. If someone doesn't indent correctly, we fix it.  No questions asked, no feelings hurt, no dignity harmed.  If someone starts a new section at the top of a talk page, we move it to the bottom of the page.  These are simple maintenance tasks that a lot of us perform all the time, and no one else feels offended by it.  Simply put, you are blowing this issue entirely out of proportion.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 15:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me make damn clear of what one of the issues I have with you. Your Attitude. You have treated some people like they didn't know things, fixing problems. I don't mind the fixing the problems, but it's the attitude I mind. To me you seem like you act like some people are idiots, when no one ever is an idiot. You come on to my talk page twice now or so and your attitude to me appears more like you're a teacher scolding a student, but not giving much helpful information at all. Not the why, how, etc. Such as this issue. You just scold me for reverting you for an Edit that I didn't think was wrong. That I felt a bit strongly against. It took the explaining above from a couple of others, more so mendel to walk me through the talks. Yes I was wrong to do it right after his. I admit that, but at the time I was not thinking. I hadn't been for oquite a while. I was aggravated about the move. I didn't understand at all what I did wrong or why. There was nothing on my talk. I reverted, then you scolded. In many wikis and I have seen this observing other wikis via wikii, wikia, shoutwiki, wikimedia, wikipedia, wizards.pro, etc. that the courtesy type people would leave a message on the user's talk that comments are usually started at the bottom. So, they would know the next time and not start a topic, etc. at the top. I'm mentioning this, because you said you just "routinely" moved comments, even topics with comments. Like that was the normal and you've had no complaints (via irc). Perhaps, because they didn't know in the first place and so they didn't bother anymore. Is that a way for someone to learn a wiki?  To me, it seems like you edit more like a bot. I'd like to see a bit more respect, kindness, etc. towards others. When you helped one user, it felt like to me - it was in a bot type tone.  I've seen either that tone or harsh type tones that have me feel like there's little or no respect coming from you. Like you don't like people messing with things, because they don't know.  I've done answered this portion up above on how that can be handled.
 * You mentioned my issues over on gww. You don't know hardly anything, nor the contributes I did. I'll name a few. I combined 3 pages into one for the henchmen for the core type areas. Also had them separate. Did the galleries for Aion, Miniature, added images to the miniature, fixed the perfect page, worked on the warrior profession for the armor (crafting side). Had many more in the works in the sandbox. Helped with the seasonal main pages, participated with the featured area and more. Many things like that are not seen, because so many had issues with me over the little things that didn't matter. That shouldn't of had an issue or really simply, could have been solved easier. Ariyen 16:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough. The comment has been moved. This issue is now closed. I don't want to hear another word about it from either of you. Ariyen, in the future, please make sure you follow the posting standards that were described above by both Mendel and Ish, and hopefully stupid arguments like this will be avoided. Jink  16:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mendel's is a bit easier to follow and better to understand. Despite that the comment issue is resolved, I just don't think other issues are. Maybe in time, they'll be solved. Thanks. Ariyen 16:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

move
You placed your comment in another place, but forgot to delete it in the original place - I fixed that for you, hope that's ok.--◄mendel► 16:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Appreciate it very much. Ariyen 16:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)