User talk:42/Archive2009-12-03

Cp

Proof As shown here: (cur) (prev) 17:59, 28 November 2009 42 (Talk | contribs) m (11,553 bytes) (putting TOC tag at top of page) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 17:58, 28 November 2009 42 (Talk | contribs) (11,546 bytes) (→NO TOC tags in infoboxes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 17:52, 28 November 2009 Ariyen (Talk | contribs) m (10,957 bytes) (→NO TOC tags in infoboxes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:42, 28 November 2009 42 (Talk | contribs) (10,517 bytes) (→NO TOC tags in infoboxes: adding my comment, and tagging out NOTOC tag in Ariyen's post) (undo) So don't point a finger, when history can't be 'changed'. -- riyen ♥ 02:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Try checking the revisions themselves in addition to the history list, because it shows who put what in.

(cur) (prev) 17:42, 28 November 2009 42 (Talk | contribs) (10,517 bytes) (→NO TOC tags in infoboxes: adding my comment, and tagging out NOTOC tag in Ariyen's post) (undo)

Want to rethink that supposed wrong finger pointing? I fixed it quietly when it happened. You bringing it up and trying to blame me is the only reason I am saying anything about it at all. 42 - talk 03:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol I'm only blaming you for this one -> (cur) (prev) 17:59, 28 November 2009 42 (Talk | contribs) m (11,553 bytes) (putting TOC tag at top of page) (undo). Not the other stuff. Really, the toc was not needed. As it's auto, don't force something on to a talk page that appears there automatically. -- riyen ♥ 03:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And as I said, it was needed because of what you did. It wasn't appearing automatically, I am presuming because of the NOTOC tag not getting marked out like it should have been. Either way, drop it. 42 - talk 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. See, The Toc appeared, when you created the new section. The NoToc did nothing to the page. As you are claiming. Aiiane just explained to you that it takes more than three sections to create a toc. The Toc and Notoc has to be by themselves to work anyway. I know. I did my pages up with the NOedit, edit, and the notoc, toc, etc. I did as previews, back before I changed my userpage as to what it is. I think you need to read more on the wikipedia as well as here about like notoc and toc, etc. on what they do, before using them. Again, My notoc didn't keep the toc from showing up. Not pointing fingers here, as you started this. Just stating the obvious that you have over looked and continue to over look and ignore people. This is why you can't get along with people. you want to claim and point and not realize that nothing was wrong from the get go. I've said my peace, hopefully you'll 'look' before you jump in to accuse. Making excuses as to why you put that there, when wasn't needed. :-) -- riyen ♥ 04:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that you need to not presume to tell others how to do things, when you are still getting told what you should and shouldn't be doing by others, and very recently. Also, (maybe typo) but you accused me of putting a NOTOC in the page, when it was actually a TOC tag.

Despite what you may think, having __NOTOC__ in the page does have an effect, even if there are enough sections to have the system make a TOC automatically. And it doesn't matter where it appears in the page. That is the whole idea behind having it. You need to read more about that yourself before trying to tell others they should read something about what you obviously know little to nothing about yourself.

The reason I "can't get along with people" is I don't like being accused of doing something that I haven't done, or doing something that others are allowed to do free and clear, and it only becomes a problem when I do the same thing. If that happens to me, I say something. I have a low tolerance for bullshit.

You should try following your own advice as well Ariyen, because something "was" wrong. If I do something, I have no problem claiming credit, good or bad, for it. I don't make excuses, unlike you. Unlike people who cause problems then try to point the finger at someone else for it. I accept responsibility for my actions. 42 - talk 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have an effect. It didn't have an 'effect', you just made it out to be like that. You are making excuses, like the categories that weren't needed or things that the rest of us have been saying isn't really helpful or useful. You're the one making up things to do. Instead of looking at the project pages. Good luck on trying to get your templates passed. 72.148.31.114 06:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you are trying to hide that it is you, Ariyen, or just didn't realize the login times out. NOTOC has an effect, no matter where in the page it is placed. I am not making it out to be anything.

I never said the categories would be useful to everyone, try reading closer. And I am still at a loss how that is an "excuse." If I am only making up things to do, then why is there so much left unfinished on the wiki? It is obvious you want to make this personal, so feel free. That is your choice. It is just sad that you feel the need to do so. If you think the templates should be passed or not is the least of my concerns. It is obvious you are basing that more on your personal feelings than any basis of fact and reasoning. 42 - talk 06:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ariyen, in case you read it here first (I also posted this link on your talk page), I re-looked up the link to this information. I highly recommend you read it before presuming to tell others to not use TOC and NOTOC without knowing what they do.

It is on the wikipedia "How to edit a page" page. Wikipedia Table of contents 42 - talk 07:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

→ moved from User_talk:Ariyen When it should have been left where it belonged

Recommended reading

Since you know so much about how the __NOTOC__ tag works, then you should let the people know who wrote the Wikipedia section on Table of contents that they are wrong in writing this:

"Table of contents
At the current status of the wiki markup language, having at least four headers on a page triggers the table of contents (TOC) to appear in front of the first header (or after introductory sections). Putting __TOC__ anywhere forces the TOC to appear at that point (instead of just before the first header). Putting __NOTOC__ anywhere forces the TOC to disappear. See also Compact TOC for alphabet and year headings."

42 - talk 07:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited by millions of people. Secondly, that notoc wasn't hurting (At the moment), before you created your new topic, just to bless me out over NOTHING, but to undo a forced 'unneeded' TOC. So just drop the shit okay? It's nowikied anyway and no problem. You keep making it the problem and that's your issue, not mine. Just quite making problems and you wouldn't be bitched at. Thirdly, if you noticed After 'storybook' I deal with inactivating guilds (following policy) orphaning images (making sure it's needed or not now) talking with others about a project. Not skipping from project to project as I have seen you do. You can't stay focused can you? I have 'three' set things I do, besides being a bit helpful elsewhere and getting bit off the head for something. We all have our own oppinions. Just some aren't so nice about things. But with this little bull crap that you have drugged over several pages, needs to stop. This is your drama 42. Not Mine. I'm moving this to Your Page where It belongs. Just do me a favor, and stop. Don't respond to this, please, not on my talk or here. Just archive it if you must. because it's over and done. -- riyen ♥ 08:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

→ moved from User_talk:72.148.31.114 When it should have been left where it belonged

You do realize this is his talkpage, don't you? Please take the initiative by stopping yourself, because ultimately this isn't your talkpage. Also, wikipedia edited by millions of people doesn't disprove any argument of his, it just means more people accept the practice/fact(s)(thus becoming accepted practice/fact(s), ye?), so stop using logical fallacies. This isn't your first time causing unnecessary drama, kindly remember the ban reason given by Pling the last time you escalated every small thing you didn't like.Pika Fan 08:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved to his talk page. And I'm not escalating... Just pointing out the facts 1. he put the toc forcefully w/out reason or stating in talk page the reason. 2. He could have just plain nicely nowiking my notoc, which would have kept from this bull crap drama that HE started. Just ending it. It's stupid, the Nowiki is there, there is no need for a toc and never was a need. It's fixed by me, with someone whining 24/7 in the process. Through with it. Going to go to bed as it's 2 am and I'm not going to put up with someone, who makes a mess of the wiki. 42, gonna let wyn deal with you, she's been here and knows how the wiki works. Maybe you need to talk to people like her. I've learned from her and others, still am learning. It's nice when there are people that's helpful, but not when people jump at you for wrong reasons, course what I learned is you look and do the actual right thing, instead of the wrong, or talk about it or end needless drama. I admit I make mistakes, who doesn't? Does it give us the right to do things like Toc that's more disrespectful, than just nowiking the problem? Does it give us the right to exceed out pointless things when we can't figure out that maybe more than one undoes my edits for a reason. I should ask, should chat with them about it? Not try to 1rr (pretty hard not to). It helps to talk about potential big edits, than to do them. -- riyen ♥ 08:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming what you said was right, both ways have the same effect. At that point, no one was more right nor wrong, but you had to escalate it, and cause drama by insisting your way to be done. This is the same problem you always had, refusal to understand why and how people do things, nor to give way for things that are so minor. Wynthyst can't help you by defending you at every turn(especially when it's doubtful when you are in the right in he first place), she has a job to do as a sysop so please stop using her as your flame shield. The problem is you, so fix it by wising up. If you haven't already done so, please reread what User:Misery told you about conflict resolution and your attitude in general. Pika Fan 08:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"1. he put the toc forcefully w/out reason or stating in talk page the reason."

The TOC wasn't showing up, which at the time was more than likely because your failure to tag out the __NOTOC__ Ariyen. That is a reason.

"2. He could have just plain nicely nowiking my notoc, which would have kept from this bull crap drama that HE started."

If you bothered to take the time to notice, I DID tag it out quietly. I didn't mention until later after you were bringing up the cause of me putting in the __TOC__. I didn't start it.

"I've learned from her and others, still am learning."

As am I. I don't (or at least I try hard) to not have the attitude that my way is just automatically the right way just because I think that.

"It's nice when there are people that's helpful"

I agree. I gave you that information trying to be helpful, to point out something you apparently didn't know. It was put on that talk page intentionally, to provide you with information.

"but not when people jump at you for wrong reasons"

And yet you keep trying to do that to someone else.

"course what I learned is you look and do the actual right thing, instead of the wrong, or talk about it or end needless drama."

Ariyen, I already tried dropping this well before. Check out under the section Cp you put in, in my comment time marked 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC). You are the one who is continuing this drama.

I'm not going to sit quietly by while someone accuses me of something when they are the cause. I wonder why you aren't asking yourself the questions you ask others. 42 - talk 15:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You think what you want of me. You don't know the things I do or why. I wasn't the one who Added the toc. IT would have been better to add the nowiki. Now shush and quit being moronic and 'defending' yourself over NOTHING. It is STUPID. It is over and done with. And all you are doing is dragging this out, quoting and saying things making yourself look worse than you already do.

Secondly It had only 3 topics, that's why the toc wasn't showing up, not because of the _NOTOC_ . Obviously you don't know talk pages well enough to know how they work, you just know how to cause more problems and not end endless drama that 'you' want to spread across 'two' more 'talk pages'. you can't admit you made a mistake in adding the toc, and that you 'could' have added in the no wiki instead. You are defending yourself for 'no reason'. 72.148.31.114 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I don't know why you do some of the things you do. I presume you believe you have the best interests of the wiki behind your actions. You sit there and accuse me of carrying this over other talk pages, when you carried this over from the CP talk page to mine. You seem to have a problem with me trying to give you information you apparently didn't have. Adding the TOC wasn't a mistake, since it isn't that big an issue until you and others made it one. I am defending myself against something because I am being accused of that same "nothing." 42 - talk 02:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop. This has been going on for too long. Can we please just drop it? -- Wyn talk 03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is not Ariyen, sorry to bother...

But if this is her, as I think, make sure that you read either the link and quote on your user talk page, or the link to that same information on my talk page about TOCs. 42 - talk 08:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave this on your talk page. Impatient one. -- riyen ♥ 08:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He posted on the appropriate page, so you would do wise to avoid making personal attacks especially when you are in the wrong. Pika Fan 08:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spreading across pages about a talk that's on one page, his. isn't the appropriate thing to do. It's impatience and it's spreading 'drama'. It's not settling a matter. Secondly, there's no npa there, but a blunt statement. Nite Nite. I'm done. -- riyen ♥ 08:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You called him impatient, that's attacking the user rather than the content. He posted on your talkpage to alert you, which was right to do so, it was directed at you even if it was hasty. You should not have moved the talk, because it rightfully belonged there. I am sure Wynthyst can tell you the same. Pika Fan 09:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

IT was directed at me in the first place. It did Not belong there. You don't post something directed at another on another user talk page, whether you think that 'ip' is them or not. It belongs here. If you don't believe me on this, ask wyn or drop it. -- riyen ♥ 09:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"72.148.31.114 06:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)"

That comment was directed at the IP number signed on the above post. If it happened to be you that posted the message, then that message got to who I think made that message, because of the wording in the message. Since the IP address was the one on record signing the comment, it was right where it belonged. It isn't where it belongs now because of your move, Ariyen.

I do not always do things right myself, and I can admit that. However, I am pretty sure that moving this as you did was not the right thing to do, even without checking with Wyn. The only time I have ever moved a part of a discussion line from one person's (DryHumour) talk page was because that line had moved to the point it needed to be elsewhere. 42 - talk 15:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, atm. I am the ip, main one that uses it. I moved it under my account. I'd still moved it under this account. So is at right place, here, where it should have stayed as a discussion w/me. you need to read my example page to see what a mess it'd be... hang on posting it.

Example: A and B had a talk on page A (As started) A shouldn't continue talk on page C (being ip of A) just as A shouldn't continue talk on page D (being ip of B) It should resume on page A. where it started and should be ended. A should not move discussion to B's page as it started on A's page and should remain there.

There posted. Hope that shows what a mess it would be if it was on 4 talk pages instead of 1. I moved it here from main CP page, because it was a one on one. Now I just hope you'll be respectful and leave this alone, else both of us might be banned (me again) for unnecessary drama. 72.148.31.114 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I want to add. You brought up the why did you revert me. "I was right" thing on the Cp. I'm saying you weren't right to add the toc, at the time it wasn't needed. There were only 3 topics. Toc doesn't automatically appear until after four topics. You could have, even though your reason for adding it was due to my notoc... you could have added the nowiki to my notoc and you wouldn't of had poke reverting you as well as me reverting you. Instead you created this whinin' drama. You escalated it, trying to make it be my problem. It's not. You can't admit you made a mistake in the first place. You want to make it all be like I'm the bad guy. Not in this situation, I'm not. I'm not good either to let it go this long, but I'm just going to say this. Grow up, shut up, and admit "hey I made a mistake. It's all fixed now. I need to let this go." Mistake I made was not adding the nowiki, when I typed it. However that didn't cause for the TOC at the top of the page. I can see it, if it was already four topics or so more. I fixed the NoTOC in my comment. (I did see the toc at top of page, however, before I corrected my mistake). It's over. There's no problem. Now stop making this out to be a 'problem' and you're 'just defending yourself.' There. I admit my faults. I just hope you can admit your's. else I would recommend not to respond to this. If you can't. 72.148.31.114 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) B should not have moved information from B's page to A's page when A was giving B information that B didn't have. Especially when B already moved this to A's page from another page.

And as I already said, I have no problem claiming credit good and bad for things I do. I will respond to unfounded accusations when they are made by someone who most likely caused the problem. Once again, I had already dropped this, so that makes it you that is continuing this "whining" drama. It was your problem because you made it yours. This is now dropped by me for the third time. 42 - talk 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Ariyen made such a stink about me "spreading" this discussion over talk pages, I thought it appropriate that her comments sent to me in a wiki helped e-mail (that sounds amazingly like someone spreading this even further) should be made an official part of this. I guess you could say I am "moving" them back here.

"Adding the TOC was your mistake." Adding it or not isn't that big an issue.

"Poke doesn't undo nonmistakes. He's been there longer than you and is trusted by the anet staff." I never had an issue with how long someone has been there. If he is trusted by the Anet staff has little to do with the wiki, as it is run by the community.

"You haven't been there even as long as I have." And? You are somehow more right than someone else because you have been there longer? Doesn't always work that way. People can be working someplace 20 years and still be doing it wrong those 20 years.

"Grow up and realize you made the mistake of adding the toc." If it pisses you off that much when people make mistakes, show them by example and do everything perfect yourself before trying to tell others how to do things. As for the first part, I believe that qualifies as a personal attack. Not sure how it applies being that it was sent in an e-mail, but it was through the wiki. I have no issue admitting I make a mistake, when I do. You saying I have is not me making a mistake.

"Instead of adding nowiki like so many on wikipedia, etc. would do." Which I already did, quietly.

"I am from Wikipedia as well as other wiki sites." Uhm, good for you?

"Have you been to them? Have you actually messed with them?" Yes. To both.

"Do you 'think' you know so much to do the messed up crap you do?" Not as much as you do, apparently.

"have you done webpages, etc? Wiki is similar to webpages also." Yes I have, and you should tell that to others who think it isn't. Believe it or not, I have actually been trying to use that point to prove another issue with how things are presented on the wiki.

"Wiki is a ripple effect to things you do. You may try to help, but cause problems." It would appear that you have a lot of experience with this yourself.

"People might start calling you vandal, because of this." I am thinking more than likely, just you.

"I'm just trying to be helpful to you. Even if you may take it offensive." Be helpful by causing a huge stink over something, that isn't that big a deal, and you were a main contributor for the cause of the problem. Yeah, you're right, I don't know how I could have missed that. Gee this sounds familiar. It sounds JUST like what I was doing, giving you information (on your talk pages where it belonged) on the __NOTOC__ tag you apparently didn't know. And when I tried to give you that help, you apparently had a major issue.

"But that's why Poke reverted you as well as I did. You don't force toc on a public talk page. Aiiane informed you of this." It still isn't that big an issue, no matter what you think of it. It isn't like the world is going to end if someone puts a __TOC__ tag. Especially when someone does so for a reason, like when someone else doesn't tag out something they should.

"Just accept you did wrong and let it go. You saying you did. But not showing it is two different things." I still don't understand how you are an expert on being able to tell others they did wrong or not, unless it is from personal experience. I believe the phrase most used is "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

"Thanks and hope you can place somewhere that you understood and know now what 'not' to do by many. Not just me. So this is why I say it's your issue. not mine." You made it an issue (which also by default made it yours) by making a huge stink of a problem that you originally caused, and then tried to deflect blame to others by making a big stink about something that isn't that much of an issue.

"Stop making it be mine and you be the victim." I am not claiming to be a victim of anything other than you blowing this way out of proportion. Since you caused the original problem, I am still not sure how I am "making" it be yours.

"I'm just saying admit that you realized your mistake and that you appreciate others who do agf but suggest other ways. And that you're sorry for taking the other ways out of contest." If I make a mistake, I have no problem admitting it, as I have said and proven many times. You apparently don't feel it necessary to follow that same advice you presume to give to others. The way you present things has a huge impact on how people take things. I suggest you look closer to how you present yourself when you see someone taking things "out of context (I think is what you meant)" before you blame them for how they take your words.

"It's how a community works." And yet you still haven't figured that out yourself.

"Isn't this how you'd do at a job, with a family, etc?" Not worthy of a response, a question from such an expert on this.

"Just think of this. I've only really tried to make suggestions." Why don't I believe this?

"Sorry you took things out of proportion." Then, as I said above, look a lot closer to how you present things instead of blaming someone else for how they take them.

"This e-mail was sent by Ariyen to 42 by the "E-mail user" function at Guild Wars Wiki."

Ariyen, I was going to leave this alone, but you seem to be intent on making this more of an issue than just yours. I have already dropped this multiple times. Why can't you? 42 - talk 05:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is going to stop now. 42, please archive this discussion. Any further feuding between you and Ariyen will result in the suspension of editing privleges. -- Wyn talk 05:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Clay, posting responses to an attack is NPA? The responses are based on the content posted, sorry "spread" to other areas by someone who already posted about an "issue" they had with the same thing. How is that an NPA? 42 - talk 05:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me give you a 'hint' about letting it go. Since, you can't and seem you 'think' your defending yourself, bringing stuff that doesn't belong on the wiki, to the wiki. Letting it go means don't bring your emails or air outside stuff here and don't respond. Drop it. You're the one bringing it back, If you dropped it? You wouldn't of brought that here. Silly, I thought the Marines taught you something. That above is considered NPA as well, as it's no proof (As none on here) and could be counted as An attack on me saying I said those things. Now if you really want to drop this? Leave the crap off the wiki and alone. Leave me alone. -- riyen ♥ 05:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen, that is rich, coming from someone who has an issue with someone giving them information, and then accusing that person of "spreading it around." This is a discussion that started on the wiki. I was taught that if someone accuses you of something, and you don't dispute it, then you agree with them. Apparently you think posting it outside the wiki that way somehow makes it right. Either way, it was copied word for word from the e-mail, and I will gladly provide proof by forwarding that to anyone who wishes it. I am also pretty sure that the wiki has records of "e-mails" sent through the wiki.

Either way, I am following Wyn's suggestion to archive it. 42 - talk 06:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I know you think you are defending yourself

But when the accusations are ridiculous, defending yourself against them is ridiculous. It's an argument about TOC's and who added one to a talk page. Seriously. Everybody involved is pretty much looking silly and petty.

On an unrelated note, I am convinced you were involved in a conspiracy eat the last marshmallow in collusion with a gang of blue penguins in the year 1862. Feel free to try and defend your character, it will be fruitless, we have already seen who you are and what you do. Misery 15:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The way I was brought up (and given my track record of accepted ideas so far on here), if someone says something against you, and you don't say anything, then you are by default just agreeing with that person. I am not the type of person to have someone accuse me of something (unless it is being a blue martian) that is not impossible without responding to it.

Either way, I am considering this dropped. The ball is in the other court now. 42 - talk 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a simple premise here. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. Before the discussions devolve into name calling and other silliness, it's time to just walk away. -- Wyn talk 03:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Already done (many times). 42 - talk 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)