User talk:Ariyen/2010/Archive

Re: RfA slander =

Let me apologize in advance to anybody else who reads this — I'm going to overuse bold terribly, because every conversation I've had with Ariyen in the last few days has shown me that non-standard formatting aids her ability to communicate.

Further, let me start by noting that, despite our several miscues, I still assume good faith when interacting with you. That is, I assume that, though I disagree with pretty much everything I've seen you do, and those things I have agreed with, I've disagreed with your methods behind it, you're acting with the intent to improve the wiki as your first goal. Also, a full disclosure of my goals of this conversation: I hope to 1) increase our mutual understanding to a point where we can at least interact without immediately breaking down and 2) to cause you to keep personal attacks or otherwise irrelevant slander off project talk pages.

I should also note that I have tried this many times off-wiki with no success, though to your credit the most recent of those times was doomed from the get-go since I started off in a confrontational mood.

"Sorry, hard to AGF on that, but I'm thinking that maybe a hold on the call so to speak, until some dramas cool down with sysops. I think it would help give people time to think and clear their heads, then continue." (emphasis mine)

"AGF" means "assume good faith." Further, when applied to a specific editor, it means "I believe you're doing what you're doing because you think it's best for the wiki." It specifically does not mean:

1. "I agree with what you're doing."
2. "I think we should be friends."
3. "Your ideas are thoughtful and I will consider them."

Ariyen, I don't merely believe in the principle of GWW:AGF — I literally cannot imagine living or interacting in any other way. To say it has guided my life in general is a misstatement, because I've always felt this way long before I saw it coded up on a wiki or in any book on philosophy, or even mere parental guidance. It's a core part of who I am — and so I'm bothered, perhaps to what appears an unreasonable degree, when I see you misuse it so regularly.

I see your quote above, "Sorry, hard to AGF on that", and I don't know what you mean. I'm going to attempt to address both possible meanings as I see them, and you can just pick one and apply the correct response. If neither seem appropriate, I'll do my best to understand your response.

If your quote means "You're a liar":

Then first, I'd like to remind you that no personal attacks are acceptable on the wiki. You are welcome to go to IRC, your blog, or even my userspace to post that kind of thing, but casually dropping it in project space talk is inappropriate.

Secondly, I'd like to know what leads you to that conclusion. You don't have any proof that I'm lying, because I was, in fact, being honest. That leads me to believe that you were simply assuming bad faith, in which case I'd like to refer you to our guideline that says you should assume good faith instead.

If your quote means "I think you're intentionally acting to damage the wiki":

Then you have every right to that opinion, and I'd be interested to know what, in the few days we've interacted, has caused you to come to this conclusion when, among thousands of other editors, over the last five years, in the face of significantly more severe actions than merely nominating some admins, not a single claim of this nature has ever been made (to my face, at least).

—Tanaric 11:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to answer, this poor excuse of a writing. This discussion is over and being archived. -- riyen ♥ 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Random emphasis

Maybe I'm the only one, but it's a pet peeve of mine and makes me sad whenever you post. And since I'm here: Happy New Year! --67.240.83.137 06:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you. Even if it's a pet peeve, it's best just to 'tolerate' me. We shouldn't deny the right for one to speak here, except unless it's a pure vandal. -- riyen ♥ 06:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Revert

Thanks for it. I didn't want to 1RR. -- Lacky 06:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's a vandal, there's no 1RR. -- riyen ♥ 06:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, still don't want to cause a conflict of interest. -- Lacky 06:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Should have paid attention to title lol . The original ip that posted it was Vili's. Oops. -- riyen ♥ 07:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow...lol -- Lacky 09:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Game Update

Do you mean, restart Guild Wars after you have already updated? If so, you should probably clarify that. If not, then what do you mean? -- Lacky 19:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually I restart twice to make sure that I get updates, etc. I have restarted once just to see the 'new build avaliable' again within minutes or so. -- riyen ♥ 20:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Whenever there's an update I always then re-open it with the -image command. -- Lacky 22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd hate to bother you about code again---

but how is it possible to add a contents section to your talk page? --rawr 02:24, 2 January 2010

Use __TOC__ –alistic 02:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It will manually show up when there is 3 or more headings, however, as balistic said, you just have to use __TOC__ if you want to force it with less than 3 headings. -- Lacky 04:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I got it, thanks :) --rawr 04:30, 2 January 2010

Or {{TOCright}} to have it on the right side. -- riyen ♥ 06:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved from [1]

Re: DM's Rfa

Pika, you have name called me in here as well as Dominator, rather started it first. So, don't whine and say you're innocent. You're not. I would say that by saying I wasn't listening to Misery or Wyn is by far sad, because see if you start piking on people name calling them, what do you expect? I can say that honestly it wasn't started by us. The only advice that I'm going to leave here is watch your wording Pika If you be nice to people, you'll get respect, but this curt negativity is not going to get you respect and therefore you shall see why you can't give respect. To Dominator, I hope you'll take that advice too on here, but understand that not everything is personal and you must watch how you say things and how people would take them. Too many it seems take it all negativity instead of stepping back and actually looking at the situations, in which you would find that not everything is as it seems or that people want to make things out to be. -- riyen ♥ 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never called you names, nor spoke to you on this page until you made cynical remarks about my validated statements about DM not being sincere with his apology earlier. Feel free to link me if I am wrong here. Now, I wasn't wrong with stating that you were engaging in name-calling, likewise, I can link you to those instances should you request for it. Wynthyst has emailed me telling me not to harrass you, and I agreed provided you didn't say or do something stupid to harrass me or another user. I see that you have reneged on that "agreement" and thus I shall, too. Here is my first ever post on the page, which clearly wasn't directed at you:[2] and here is your reply:[3]Pika Fan 18:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop with the name calling on people, me on other pages (in past), dominator on here. It's very low of you, but since you're going to play dumb and say "whomever" started it. I'd say drop it and stop it. Anyway, wanted to clarify this: "It's sad how someone thinks you'll play a guilt trip." was not about you personally, if it was. I would have MENTIONED Your name. As you stated here "It's sad that you have to talk about me so indirectly like that, Ariyen" that it was. I could be talking about anyone from Irc to email to here, who knows, but you assumed and then it all was about 'you' and the name calling. so quit it and leave problems that you have no clue about and would like to get in the middle of and me and others you personally dislike alone. You'd have less problems that way. 72.148.31.114 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for there to be "name calling", someone needs to call someone else actual names. The term does not apply to anyone being rude, snippy or just plain confrontational. Though I'd just get that in there.--Lensor (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What ever it was, and what ever it is no longer matters. Either drop it or take it to another location since this situation is pretty much just back and forth chasing. --Dominator Matrix 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved this here because your calling me out is not directly related to the Rfa, and you took the initiative in the first place. I did not insult DM with name calling. And I was the only one who mentioned the guilt trap, please don't feign ignorance when you know are guilty of it. It also doesn't make any sense to reply to an imaginary person from IRC and email on DominatorMatrix's Rfa talkpage. You are the person who has been repeatedly compounding the problems between the two of us. Like I pointed out, my criticism to DM on DM's rfa didn't require you to say snide and untrue remarks - I wasn't talking to you, nor required you to punctuate in between my remarks. Pika Fan 03:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Policies and user talk pages

Read Guild Wars Wiki:User pages, Guild Wars Wiki:One-revert rule and Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks. You're only allowed to remove comments from your user talk pages if they're personal attacks or vandalism, or you're archiving them or moving them to another page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That was moved back to the proper place, Sir. Jack

If you're going to move content from one talk page to another, please use the moved tag or mention the target page in order to prevent misunderstandings. Also, don't move content in violation of the reversion policy. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If Ariyen wants the discussion off of her talk page, she can archive it herself after her block has expired. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you're evading your block, stop it, and if your friends are editing on your behalf, you should tell them to stop. Either way, people are probably going to assume you're evading a block, which is generally considered serious misconduct. You should take a break and let this blow over. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pika

Ariyen, I am aware that you are blocked at the moment so this will have to stand for when you come back from said block: please do not continue your arguments with Pika upon your return. The two of you clearly don't get on and your further arguing is none-conducive to the smooth operation of the wiki. thanks. -- Salome 13:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)