User talk:Ariyen/2009/Archive4

To ZD

You haven't commented. Backsword 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

you haven't played it to show your facts. Still stands as truth as is, plus what's up there is more information from the details already placed there and also was done by the guidelines (Aka Quests and Locations) of which you seem to not follow. Else you'd drop this argument on To ZD and realize the truth/facts. -- riyen ♥ 06:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Inactive tags

Hey. I saw you reverted a couple of my inactive tags. Do you for a fact know that these guilds are still active? I did read the discussion pages, but frankly, just leaving a message for a contact person does not constitute proof of activity. I had to fight like crazy to get taggers to even check forum/website links before tagging. Not even I am going to spend days tracking down contacts before tagging though (I do have a day job already). If you want to alert contacts of their Guild pages' imminent move to inactive status, all the more power to you. But we cannot let the "waiting to be tagged" list grow endlessly while you wait for answers that may never come. --Lensor (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a short list, might I add. I tagged some. Give a day or two (no more than three) see if they change anything. If not, then tag. So simple, right? Sure you have a job, but not a requirement to tag guilds daily. Be Lenient a little. I did follow the policy when I tagged earlier. Looks like may have to assign people to it, if possible. Not many mess with the tagging system of the guilds and if they do, they should follow the guild policy. Plan to make a note of an addition to look into the discussion, before deletion to see if another is 'on top' of it or not. -- riyen ♥ 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a short list because people tag, not because there are few guilds to go through. The list is up to ~20 several times a week. I am not the only person tagging, but I have still in less than one week gone through over 50 guilds.. Also, the policy has recently been reworded to NOT have to go hunt down contacts before tagging, for the simple reason that it is completely unreasonable to demand such a thing. You are the only person I have seen even attempt to, and if you knew how many guilds there really are going inactive on a weekly basis are you would soon give up (or give up your day job :P). Just keeping track of which guilds someone has attempted to contact on that "waiting to be tagged" list would be a nightmare in itself. So, if you want to give people a heads up that their guild pages are about to go inactive, go ahead, but unless there is actual proof of activity there is no reason for them to continue to clutter up the "waiting to be tagged" list. --Lensor (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been 'activity' via the users on the two you tagged. Secondly, I don't have a Job and it's not hard to track down 50 'inactive' guilds or so. LOL I use to track down a lot more than that on a weekly basis at a Job I had, (was pregnant, couldn't do the 'painting' that was harmful :-( got laid off cause hr every1 else was mad at her, but didn't do anything, sad the way it ran. It's laid off most since). Hence, you make a system and have a system that works. Not to mention, if you see activity within those months, which I noticed, then there's more than a possibility. I prefer to follow policy, not just 'tag', as pages like that will still be there. Regardless, of what anyone does, because all we're doing is tagging them to become 'historical' not to 'delete'. I think several do it, because they're bored and don't 'follow' the policy. -- riyen ♥ 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't base guild inactivity on user activity. As per policy, its whether the guild page has been inactive or any website/forum is inactive. If the user is active, great, he can go revert the tag. They themselves have to do that though, seeing as they're the "main contributor" to the guild page. -- Wandering Traveler 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If any user is active of that guild, most likely guild could be active. I don't see the harm of giving them a heads up. If NOTHING is done within two days, Tag the guild inactive. Simple. If you were owner and you knew your guild was active, wouldn't you want a heads up? To keep it from being inactive? Because It IS the 'USERS' who POST on their forums, etc. that shows signs of life, Shows activity. You guys nitpicking on how to determine 'inactivity'? Pretty sad, if any activity, I don't see the harm of letting them know, giving a chance, then if no activity. Inactivate it. Two days isn't going to be much difference. I've not seen a lot of guilds inactive in two to three days. Four yes, but less no. -- riyen ♥ 17:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's anyone nitpicking, it is you because you have a bone to pick with people who are following policy. If you think the policy is wrong, feel free to suggest changes on the respective changes instead of causing drama over silly things like guildpages which no one cares about. No matter how "right" you are, if the general consensus and what is stated in policy disagrees with you, you are wrong. If you are unclear of the definition of a policy, please, consult an admin.Pika Fan 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read a policy or two, else you wouldn't of been wrong, aka warned on your page, such as npa, etc. Please don't speak to me about it or get involved in a talk page that don't concern you. It's just trolling, you know. I usually do consult when I'm unclear about things where they hang out at or other types of ways of talking to them. This isn't a 'consensus' thing, It's a discussion. You are misjudging and misreading. Learn, before typing about of which you do not know. -- riyen ♥ 00:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I can choose to poke my nose in something that concerns the wiki and its policies, you have no right to stop me. I read enough to know that you are accusing people of nitpicking, which is violating NPA on every level, since they are merely following policy. Like I said, if you disagreed with the policy, you either suggest changes to the policy, or at the least not subvert it to your own benefit. Kindly keep to the topic at hand, instead of involving unneccesary and unrelated issues. You are merely letting your personal feelings dictate your posts.P.S. You choose to take offence in something you felt guilty about, I can't stress how funny it is when someone overreacts to something that he/she claims isn't true.Pika Fan 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not accusing . Look up the word nitpicking. it's not a personal attack. Anyone can be 'picky' even me. Not to mention, it was in the form of a quesion, which clearly forms no attacking. Thanks for assuming. Topic is closed here, btw. Was, before your post. Not to mention people can have opinions, without making 'consensus' with others on changing something that may may not be needing changing. it's just in how people can deal with things. Thanks. Am archiving closed topics in two days. -- riyen ♥ 03:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ari, only remove inactive guild tags if you know that the guild is active. Follow the Guild page policy. If you have spoken to any of the users and have been told their guild is still active, that is one thing, if you are just assuming their guild is active because they are, that is wrong. By removing a properly placed tag, you are removing that page from the inactive queue for 3 months.... we don't manually go back and check to see if there is activity AFTER you remove the tag. -- Wyn talk 04:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The forums of those two guilds were active, noticed the places had recent posts not just here, but else where. I had researched, using what was available as recommended per policy to check. I left a couple of notes. Even in discussion. The person that marked them inactive. Apparently didn't do such a thing. You're to check, discussion, forums, etc. before you mark. I marked those that were inactive that day, because there was no forum, etc. I do not see a problem with trying to send a message and waiting a day or two before marking inactive. Most seem 'in a hurry' to do it like right then and that day as if it's part of a 'job' , even when they have a 'day job' when there's many of us here who could help with the inactive labeling, etc. It never has gotten over '20' guilds and if at that. There really shouldn't be a problem, but a working progress solution/situation. Pika claims up there that I said nitpicking as a violation. It's a question, not a statement, not an accusation and I hope he'll do the agf. As some are forgetting to do, and being in a hurry to 'get things' done instead of 'looking' like at the discussions seeing if another was 'on top' of it or even actually checking out forums, etc. that are listed on some of these guids. giving a short bit. (not give a little, expect them to take a lot. gotta stand behind what you give and not be 'walked' all 'over'). I did check activity before I removed the tags, by the way. I did it, before they even placed up the tags. Hence, discussion area wasn't looked at. Ask before Assuming Wyn. -- riyen ♥ 07:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, if you knew what I went through regarding forums/websites on guild pages and the length I go through checking links in guild pages, you would not go around spreading lies like that. The two guilds in questions has NO active accessible forums listed! one has no links at all, and the other one has a link but it needs login to access (ie not accessible) as well as a webpage with no dated updates since 2008. So, again, per policy they should be tagged. If you know of separate forums these guilds may have that are not listed on their guild pages, please feel free to update the links. But don't spread lies about me for tagging them in perfect accordance with policy.--Lensor (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Then how did I get a yahoo id from one of the guilds? Hmm? Left message to that one there - email wise too. History - the one that creates the page is part of the guild. You leave a message. It usually sends to their email. You wait a bit, then nothing? Mark. Leaving mesasges helps you know. I didn't see that from you. if you go through lengths then why aren't you asking 'questions' to those that create the guilds or fix them up, aka user links, etc. -- riyen ♥ 08:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You claim no website from Royals New Player Assistance [Help]? What about Royals New Player Assistance [Help] - this and this.
Guild:The_Swords_Of_The_New_World - that one I made a mistake on - eh, oops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariyen (talk • contribs) at 08:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Interesting. Website was up yesterday, must have taken it down, when I left yahoo msg. ^.^ Improvements. There's an answer. -- riyen ♥ 08:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Found this via their forum. We're offline due to the guild being remade. Our new guild(yet to be made) has it's forum up already. here is the link: http://z8.invisionfree.com/Until_The_Day_Breaks/index.php?act=idx There's your answers. Posting truth. Anyway, At least I undid my changes. :-P -- riyen ♥ 08:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh? How does this change anything? Even your new links confirm that I was right to tag. Just to be extra super clear; a forum you have to register for does not count as "accessible". And [Help]'s website is still up here, and the last change there was 2008! That you are able to find a contact address is no proof of activity (I can do that also, it is not that part which is the annoyance, it is the keeping track of them and cluttering "waiting to be tagged" list part), and thus, PER POLICY, is not a valid reason to keep the guild at active status. It is very nice of you to try to contact the person in charge of the page to let them know of their guild page's inactive status, but that is your side project, not something you can hold up guild space maintenance over. If you were the only person tagging it would be no trouble, but you aren't. Doing it "your way" would mean a LOT of wasted effort as tagger after tagger after tagger have to go through guilds on a growing "waiting to be tagged" list just to find that you are "on top of it". To remove a tag takes a second, so if you actually manage to get in touch with someone, they can remove the tag after the fact.--Lensor (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Give a day or two (no more than three) see if they change anything. If not, then tag." - That's the wrong way. The inactive guild tag is to notify people and give them time to undo it and show they are still active. If we wouldn't wait for them, we would just archive them as historical. So adding the inactive tag should be done first; if you want to contact people and notice them about it, it is fine; but that shouldn't slow down the inactive guild tagging (as Wyn said, removing the tag to give them time removes the guild for another 3 months). poke | talk 09:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if you re-add? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariyen (talk • contribs) at 09:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Like say someone else (sides me) removes a tag, but is not a part of the guild, knows nothing much, blindless. One of us finds it and places it to inactive, noticing it's been in active for.. 4 months let's say. And it doesn't add them to the inactive list? If that's the case there too. More problematic than known. -- riyen ♥ 09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Any edit - if you add the tag, remove it or readd it - counts as an edit and removes the guild page from the list of guilds that are inactive (the table) and should receive the tag. So if someone removes the tag, without a good reason, and you see and know that, you can readd it to add the page to the category and mark it as inactive. But if no one notices it, the page is lost within the large number of guild pages for another 3 months. poke | talk 09:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, guilds that are completely gone and known... why aren't they removed for the new ones that might have the same name? -- riyen ♥ 09:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lensor clearly mentioned that the Sword of the New World had no listed website/forums, and the RNPA guild website hasn't been updated since 2008 and the forums were shifted due to the reforming of the guild. She did not claim that the RNPA website did not exist. Please reread if it's a case of tl;dr.

You state that you did your research, but you completely overlooked these two facts until lensor pointed them out. I don't know how you expect anyone to AGF with regards to your subversion of the guild policy.

Lastly, it just means editors like lensor needs to manually tag inactive guild again because users refuse to read and follow the guild policy. Your argument that people like you would cause the inconvenience because of the inability to read policies is refuted by the fact that you should follow policy instead of having policies accomodate to you.

P.S. Please type in understandable english, nobody is asking for perfect grammar/spelling, but please make yourself understandable. 152.226.6.203 09:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I type in American English. If you don't understand, then that I can't help. The facts remains, the guilds are in inactive status and really this has already been settled. You failed to understand that the links on that one - website was different, there was signs of activity. I left a message to the user. I have screenshot the message to show proof of when it was sent. (Which would go with the discussion message, left in discussion of that guild). So, I did not over look any facts, just I messed up on one.

No one is perfect, don't expect that people should be. There are mistakes. If you can point out that any of us are perfect, I'd like to see that. Here's my proof, besides, what the discussion of the guild page, would show. File:User Ariyen DesktopImage.JPG Click Image to enlarge. Nothing's been touched nor edited. I popped up the history and captured it. It deletes after each shutdown this computer makes. -- riyen ♥ 09:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't have posted that. You can see someone's email. - Reanimated X 09:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll edit that out. and reload. -- riyen ♥ 09:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Plus, the image is a copyvio due to Windows icons/material being included. As for your English, I agree that your incorrect usage of punctuation and sentence fragments makes it a bit jarring and difficult to read. Off topic, I know, but I'm jus' sayin'. --★KOKUOU★ 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a desktop personal use picture. -.- I see no violation, when only trying to proove a point, w/out someone else saying it's a fake picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariyen (talk • contribs) at 10:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

It doesn't matter. Screenshots have been tagged in the past numerous times for containing Windows/Microsoft icons, etc., so unless that's changed, it's a copyvio, whether for personal use or not. --★KOKUOU★ 10:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Again,It's a desktop personal use picture. -.- I see no violation, when only trying to proove a point, w/out someone else saying it's a fake picture. It's not going to be Permanent. I intend deleting it, once this ends. (I HOPE SOON). So don't have a cow, Kokuou. Also making fun of one's English in a 'round' about way is npa. please don't speak to me about 'how I type'. You should speak that to others, instead of singling me out. -- riyen ♥ 10:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Nothing I said was NPA. I was commenting on the content of your messages (which use incorrect punctuation/sentence fragments making them a bit jarring to read, in my opinion), and not the commenter (you). If you're going to call people out for GWW:NPA, at least know what it is before doing so.

As for the image, I'm just following what has been done in the past concerning desktop screenshots. --★KOKUOU★ 10:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL not calling you out for the NPA silly. I'm just stating for others that have on here. It's rude and annoying. I understand of your image thing. But The other images that are in 'violation' aren't deleted until someone gets to them. I just know that and hope that this will be up long enough to prove a point (To Wyn, Lensor, etc.) that I did notice and researched much as I could, before I thought about the tagging. which I didn't do, Lensor did, w/out checking the discussion and quizing if I had gotten anything or not (if guild was active or not) A reminder, before the tag was place. An Incident of which did not happen.

That's what's irritating. Claims to have looked, when as photo shows, How could one gotten email other wise, dealing with that guild? Hmm? I do not know that person, but I'm not 'scared' to take chances, when I could really help. See? This is what my problem is, people pointing figures, etc. instead of asking questions that should be asked. There's no AGF. Never was, else this would have been settled a LOT sooner. And NOT drug out. Not my fault really. I'm just pointing out facts and truth. That's all, nothing more. -- riyen ♥ 10:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No one is perfect, true. But when you go around using incorrect information to paint others in a negative light, expect getting called on it. No one doubts that you were able to send a message. But for the umpteenth time; just finding a contact address does not constitute proof of activity. I do doubt your statement that the website of [Help] was "different" though, since it looks the exact same as it did when I tagged (and that yahoo contact is on this subpage btw). However, I suppose it is possible that the page administrator changed the page to something completely different and active right when you were looking at it, and then changed it right back just to make it look like you had not done your homework. Is that what you think happened? --Lensor (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Most likely. changed it like that. Hard to tell on websites. I know, changed one four times within hours of each other, until I had things fixed or deleted, etc. But site was active at the time, I was able to browse looking at the information. Did notice user was online, and went offline when I sent the message. -- riyen ♥ 10:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When I read what you wrote just now, I get the suspicion that you have not yet realized that you mistyped the web address above. This is the correct link to [Help]'s webpage, and it has not changed one bit since I tagged it. Yes, you can "browse looking at the information" and yes there is an app to see if messengerofgasia in online in yahoo (it will tell you if (s)he is online in yahoo, but says nothing about the guild activity). The website as such is still not active though, since the last dated update was back in 2008.--Lensor (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I visited the link that was in the guild it's self, when I pasted at the time. had a little girl trying to hit my keys(she's in bed) most likely hit the back key on a letter of that site. Her daddy, prefers to play the game and ignore when I'm busy, here trying to type. So, yes, my words above may not make sense at times. Hard, with real life, but this is me. I get involved with things. The user was online at the time I saw the person. I sent that message in picture, within a minute after the person had gone offline. I had not received a word one way or another. Was hoping to wait a short bit, check the next morning (as I needed to get to bed) to see if I received a message. When I undid the guilds. (oops on my part on a wrong one). I really meant one, but wasn't having a good day. I wanted to finish what i had started. (with fussy in ear, wasn't easy). It was then I managed to get sluggish, I'm gonna be a pain, yahoo to login. I waited until everything had settled, messages, etc. to see if I had received one or not. If so, I'd noted that in guld, etc. I didn't and reverted myself on both. -- riyen ♥ 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call whatever you typed above understandable. It took me 2 minutes to try and decipher the drivel in your second part of the statement. Pika Fan 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So? If you don't understand that, I'm sorry. But it's plain and simple. Try being optomistic, Third person viewing. Place yourself in another's shoes. See a 'possible' future. Then, hopefully you could understand. If not? Well, do you... read books, watch movies, research, listen to music(that has stories in them), etc.? Might help. Now, if there's no more getting back to the topic at hand. I'll archive this... Saturday morning or Friday Night to end the discussion. Because personal topics, or topics getting off topic, should really be left unsaid, because nothing would change and no good would come of it. -- riyen ♥ 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Being optimistic has nothing to do with understanding what you are trying to say. If you don't make yourself understandable and clear with your words, people are forced to assume what you are trying to mean, and that leads to misunderstandings.

For example: Like say someone else (sides me) removes a tag, but is not a part of the guild, knows nothing much, blindless. One of us finds it and places it to inactive, noticing it's been in active for.. 4 months let's say. And it doesn't add them to the inactive list? If that's the case there too. More problematic than known. -- riyen ♥ 09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The part in bold didn't make any sense apart from "something being more problematic". Pika Fan 12:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

More problematic than known = More problems that could occur or more problems lay ahead or there could be more problems. It's a reference of mine that can fit any of those three (or all three). Now, since that's off topic... I hope to only discuss things that relate to the topic. I intend to do such. If it's off topic, I'm going to say it's off topic and is no relations to what's being discussed in topic. Hope that helps! -- riyen ♥ 12:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the English that everyone other than you use, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Sure, what I am saying is off-topic, but it is crucial to understanding you and staying on-topic. How are people supposed to answer to you properly if they don't even understand what you are talking about? And it's not just me that find your comments annoying to read through, refer to what Kokuou said. Pika Fan 12:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

lol, it's not 'crucial' to understand me. You don't need to understand someone to stay on topic, Just the situation. Point is, I don't care if you find my comments annoying. They're mine. I might find your comments annoying, but I'm not complaining. I'm not trying to make a big 'to do' about it. I use American English. That's plain and simple, I'm a southern girl. I type my own way. I type as I talk. People like you, if you was here, where I am? You wouldn't fit, because trying to understand online... Uh, yea... I don't see that going anywhere. Also, I use same English as others use. Hold decent conversations, that some to most seem to understand. Some that don't? Pika, they don't bother. So.. Don't bother? Just let it go. You're dragging it way on out of topic and I may just archive it tonight if that'll stop the discussion. Up to you. I understand why, because you're trying to understand me. Don't. Because you'll be lost, confused, and like me less. Honestly, Just read what you can and understand what you can. Because there's always a reason for not understanding things or people. It's a way of life, a way of things. So can this be finished, guys and gals? Can I archive it Sat at the latest? -- riyen ♥ 12:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I read whatever you said, laughed my ass off, then consolidated the fact that it is impossible to get people to have common sense. Sorry for bothering you. Pika Fan 12:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

lol, Actually it's impossible to truly understand people from all over the world. We all have our own common sense that is different from one another. It's what makes us unique. Glad to have had the discussion, Pika. -- riyen ♥ 12:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll let the United Nations know they can disband now. elix Omni 15:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

<<...(something offtopic) is crucial to understanding you and staying on-topic.>>

<<...it's not 'crucial' to understand me...>>

I wonder if the two of you are even talking in the same language. Koda Kumi 15:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to understand what the other party is trying to say in order to contribute to the discussion, you know, so it doesn't matter. Pika Fan 16:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood Washes Blood

2 things: First, if you're going to re-add the note, make sure it has proper spelling and grammar. Second, that note is more relevant to Flames of the Bear Spirit than Blood Washes Blood. --JonTheMon 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Two things, you can't do? if you revert someone, like that one. Tell IN revert where it belongs. Then do it, Don't post it here and expect someone else to. -- riyen ♥ 18:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who re-added it. And as per 1RR I'm not allowed to just remove it again. --JonTheMon 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well next time you do revert, State the actual purpose, Not something lame like "Have you tried standing there to cap" more so like "This belongs over at Flames of the Bear Spirit." So it's more 'clear' on your revert. Makes sense? -- riyen ♥ 20:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noctarch (talk • contribs) at 20:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

(Edit conflict) My removal of the note and its proper place are somewhat unrelated. So, if the note were acceptable, it would go on Flames; I just don't think the note is, well, noteworthy. --JonTheMon 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's helpful. Is it not noteworthy? -- riyen ♥ 20:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I like to draw the line between helpful and obvious. In my mind it crossed the line due to the fact that the user should have been able to recall how he/she captured the altar before. But, that's subjective, and the notes not at the wrong place. --JonTheMon 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand you, but also understand some of the others. Impatience. There are those who get 'impatient' and mess up. I think more-so that the note is for them. It's basically stating, you need patience at this or that point to finish. There are parts that's not a 'fly through' and they'd just have to deal with it. -- riyen ♥ 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

hello --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.210.107 (talk).

Hi -- riyen ♥ 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

i am friend NOT foe!!--68.163.210.107 23:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. -- riyen ♥ 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am foe, not friend. Koda Kumi 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, Nah. You're alright. -- riyen ♥ 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a horse. Misery 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? I'm a cat then. Meow. -- riyen ♥ 18:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I like chocolate. - Mini Me talk 19:50, 6 November 2009

Chocolate candy is tasty. -- riyen ♥ 19:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indubitably. - Mini Me talk 19:59, 6 November 2009

Inactive tagging

Hey, I noticed you have started tagging inactive guilds, which of course is very welcome. However, please state the reason (i.e. "added inactive tag") in edit summary, and insert date in tag (by typing {{inactive guild|~~~~~}}). If you are going to do a lot of tagging, you might want to look into the GWWT though, which does all this for you automatically.--Lensor (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

GWWT is just helpful overall for wiki janitor duties. --RIDDLE 22:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, but if you look Lensor, you'd see that I'm already using that tag. {{inactive guild|~~~~~}} on the guilds. They can check the guild to see the reason. Also know GWWT is pretty helpful, hence I have the help from a mono . js that poke created, that has auto links to the gwwt. -- riyen ♥ 23:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but I put dates on four guilds today that lacked them. The reason for the edit summary is for the benefit of people patrolling "recent changes", so they can know what was the reason for your Guild edits at a glance on the list. I know what GWWT does, which is why I suggested you should use it ;) --Lensor (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're 'curious' they can just check out the pages, not that many use summaries. -- riyen ♥ 23:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You would be surprised at how many do. The summaries are there to help people scan the reasons behind edits without having to go to the page. Use them. Not only does it benefit the people patrolling RC, but it's also courteous. King Neoterikos 23:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For tagging it is common practice to state so in summary. Which is why the GWWT will include an edit summary in all its operations. --Lensor (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I do, but not as often as I should. Kinda hard when you have so many on your back. It's better to just get some things done, and have it be one less thing. If you want people to be courteous. Suggest it in a policy to be mandatory, don't pick certain few and harp on their backs. -- riyen ♥ 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Seriously, can you stop playing the victim card? No one is singling you out. If you're going to tag guilds for inactivity (which is appreciated), the least you can do is have the courtesy to include an edit summary so that others know what it's about. Why should we have to waste all our time clicking on a guild when it's so much faster for you to include an edit summary before saving? And like Lensor said, GWWT will automatically include an edit summary for you if you were to use it. --★KOKUOU★ 23:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Maybe some don't want to? People are people, you can't change them by telling them what to do, even if it's good intentions or not. I'm not playing the victim card, but if you are to tell all this to one. waste your breath on others. Seriously, stop making the net such serious business, respect for what people do. After all, It's not going to make much difference one way or the other. Just be happy for what is. Make a difference on actual pages that's gonna really matter. -- riyen ♥ 23:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can save 10 people 30 seconds of trouble by taking an extra 30 seconds yourself, why would you not do it? elix Omni 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I am me? -- riyen ♥ 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Because if you are going to be a spoiled child and be difficult when "helping" out in the wiki, you may as well not do it at all. You will be more of a hindrance than a help. Pika Fan 02:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, Not really being difficult. More so, just aggravating when some get warned and no bans. Yet others get bans for little things. If I were a spoiled child, wouldn't I be having everyone do everything for me, and just point things out? -- riyen ♥ 04:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly how you were reacting to edit summaries. Also, what do bans have to do with anything? King Neoterikos 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to edit things, If a summary is needed and I do Remember. I'll add it. But sometimes I may be focus on just like tagging something or adding things. Should that bother? I highly don't think it should be an issue or a 'reminder'. It's like calling the kettle black. So it's there, so it's done. No one else did it for that person. if those look at recent edits and get 'curious' well that's them. Just so long as the things are done. Shouldn't matter nor be an issue. I'm not the one being a spoiled child, telling others to add this or that. May be out of respect for doing such, but asking is better than flat out pointing out things that are merely trivial that won't make a difference one way or another. I do appreciate some things and would try to keep it in mind, but I'm no moronic fool. So just drop this matter. -- riyen ♥ 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And that's where you are wrong. The summaries are not there for people to "get curious", they are there to tell people what the edit was about so they don't have to "get curious". I'm glad you've decided to use them in future, it will make patrolling RC much easier for everyone. King Neoterikos 04:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Used them in the past, but I guess you fail to look at history of Contributes. 72.148.31.114 06:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I like it when people are consistent. King Neoterikos 11:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Listen, if you really don't want to use summaries when tagging, noone can actually force you to. However, if you are going to tag, and already have the GWWT installed, why not use it? It would save both you and other people a ton of work.--Lensor (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If I can remember to use it. I'll use it. -- riyen ♥ 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Might want to...

Work out your page color. At the moment (at least for me), it is hiding subject lines. Not necessarily a bad thing, but we like to see subject lines, ya know? A grayish color might work, or if there is some really fancy way to change subject line color, that'd work too. -- Wandering Traveler 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I find it pretty disruptive overall. Please choose something that black text will show up on (and preferably isn't an eyesore). Thanks. – Emmett 00:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really find it disruptive, tbh, its just a minor eyesore when black-on-black hits. :\ -- Wandering Traveler 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Better? Don't know how to get subject lines to show up in a code, but eh.. oh well. -- riyen ♥ 00:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that definitely works. I can't figure out why the edit section tab is showing up, but eh. This works. :) -- Wandering Traveler 00:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I wondered about that too, so took a closer look. It is because the include User:Ariyen/TabsTop has the __NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__ switch. I would suggest editing this, since it makes it much more difficult for people to leave comments. --Lensor (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing that would affect all of the user space, making it rather messed up. -- riyen ♥ 01:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just save a separate copy for use only in the talk page.--Lensor (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do after supper. Will be more pages created, etc. but think it might can be fixed. -- riyen ♥ 01:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

see if this works. -- riyen ♥ 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It does! --RIDDLE 05:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Your userpage is over the 300kb limit. 68.163.212.21 21:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If 291b were over 300kb, then yes. Titani Ertan 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, how do you check that? I've been wondering. -- Tha Reckoning 21:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Check the History. Titani Ertan 21:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but all images and transcluded templates/pages count aswell, just the GW2 icon she has on her page is over twice the size of 300kb C4K3 Talk 21:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I don't think it works that way. Titani Ertan 21:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol. thanks for noticing. It was temp till I found a dragon photo to upload. -- riyen ♥ 22:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a conversion with bytes. It's actually below the kb limit - it's currently at 0.178 kilobytes (abbreviated as KB or Kb*) -- riyen ♥ 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This Edit

needs to be done to your CSS instead to your Javascript File. --SilentStorm 12:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmhmmm. fixing to remove it from js. just was bored. ^.^ -- riyen ♥ 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Page title should also be lower-case ("/monobook"). -- pling 17:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

O? didn't really think it mattered either way? (Did work capitalized and still does). -- riyen ♥ 17:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Warning: There is no skin "Monobook". Remember that custom .css and .js pages use a lowercase title, e.g. User:Foo/monobook.css as opposed to User:Foo/Monobook.css. It works because you have User:Ariyen/monobook.js with the same code. -- pling 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

o, *kicks chrome* . It'd load up a blank page when I typed it lower case. I'll have to get capital one deleted. (possible?) -- riyen ♥ 17:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pling, can you delete the capital one? -- riyen ♥ 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Troll

Care to explain your reasoning for tagging it for deletion there? I'm somewhat puzzled. Misery 18:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hi, please don't tag pages with speedy deletion for vandalism (or any other reason) if it could see serious use, or if the deletion might be opposed. Instead just use a non-speedy delete, that gives everybody 3 days to discuss the deletion. Also the deletion of Template:Troll is being opposed, so if you still want it deleted you should probably go check it C4K3 Talk 18:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) you conflicted me too - Isn't it just delete only? with the note that nothing links there, a useless page? Kinda can't remember. If not, o oops. That's what my intension was. If others disagreed, it'd been cool. I just had an opportunity on last night (As husband doesn't REALLY want me on when he's up, fussy fussy.) and tried to do a bit of help. was a long day / night.

Though I guess I had hit the wrong one. Oops . :-/ Just didn't see a need for it there. Thought it was just the delete button. darn chrome... Wish things were slightly more... clear to see. (Especially when my glasses are broken - I can see, but just a lil better w/em. and munchkin broke mine. -.- ). -- riyen ♥ 18:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's transcluded in about 5 places. I was just confused by your reasons for wanting it deleted and was not sure if I were missing something. If you've removed the tag however, there is nothing to discuss. Misery 18:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Armor art articles#Materials

Since you've been reorganizing materials in the armour articles, I thought you'd probably want to participate in this discussion. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I noticed that you made a lot of changes to them, but the new versions look like crap to me. The numbers to about half of the mats were on a separate line from the mat they're for. I can take a screenie for you if you like. I don't know why you're doing what you're doing, but it looks horrible for me, I use IE on Vista x64 widescreen 1440x900. I reverted the change on Necro Vabbian armor, but then noticed you changed A LOT of them, so I want to bring this to your attention. Rose Of Kali 14:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, heh, just noticed the section above. Yeah... >_< Rose Of Kali 14:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Added the two discussions together . I'll participate in above (As I just have). -- riyen ♥ 18:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What?

YOU read the talk page. It was a mistake that resulted in the item being added. It still needs to be discussed. -- FreedomBound 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)