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)