User talk:Ariyen

Archives
Personal Log
Archive Date: 11121.3

---

♥ 2009 ♥

♥ 2010 ♥

♥ 2011 ♥

---

Ariyen ~ ♥ Please leave a message at the bottom. ♥

Talk page rules:

1. - If you want to first, do it on an original enjoyable way.
2. - Please don't use personal attacks, either against me or anyone else.
3. - Don't edit or delete comments, unless you spot a typo in your own message.
4. - Always sign your posts! - Ariyen

Because I don't break 1RR

No, we actually discussed both of those things...

• Header was around here.
• News was around here.

I'm not going to break 1RR, but I wouldn't be suprised if any of the other contributors reverted you, given that we did, you know, discuss it. Just because you weren't there doesn't mean that the discussion didn't happen. Aqua (T|C) 04:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you did, but I'm not qqing over it nor am I going to make a big to do on the 1rr it's self (I just did on your style of writing/attitude). I'll just show you. Both, Shew and I, removed "the comprehensive reference" here, (though had more words in it, those words were removed) and here. Those times - looking at the corresponding talk page - the wording of it was not discussed. :-) If you can prove to me (Just post a link) that between those edits and corresponding to the talk page were discussed. I'd revert myself and leave it all alone. 72.148.31.114 05:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, secondly. you didn't "allow" for shew's preview to stay. It didn't look like anyone objected, but you and it is just your word against shew's. Still, it's best to have a "consensus" before reverting. Much less other opinions. :-) (and I brought it to a newer light for more opinions). 72.148.31.114 05:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Far as the news, I fixed the actual news section (it needed updating). It looked the same/similar as your own anyway. Also, I think any proposals to news, should be brought to the news template and not main page/editcopy as those changes would affect the main page and main page editcopy. Not like that should have changed in the first place, as {{news}} should have stayed for an "actual" transparent look. I only "fixed" that, because I didn't want an admin to do a copy/paste and miss that the news was coming from a template of your's and not the real section. 72.148.31.114 05:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC x2)

That's debatable.

There was a gap of two days in between the reverts, and by the nature of the editcopy page, suggestions on it can be "rolled back" every so often.

Both the discussions this year and back in June fizzled out without consensus fully supporting a new suggestion. So, I do think Aqua is justified in reverting edits that go against these discussions, since the question has been put to the community and it has decidedly failed to support a change.

Lastly I would say that even the editcopy has a talk page, and I'm not sure how appropriate it is to use the editcopy for rephrasing a sentence. That seems like something ideal for the talk page, by nature of being a small change, which is entirely text-based.

I will, accordingly, reinstate the other revision as there are currently wide-scale (and popular) changes proposed on it, and I don't want additional proposed changes on the editcopy to cause confusion. As I stated above, there is no pressing need for the rephrasing of a sentence to be previewed on the editcopy; if people can see it there, they can see it on the talk page.

If anything, it is better there, as it is more likely people will chime in and come to a consensus on a particular formulation. A F K When Needed 05:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Those links on the discussion of the "sentence" were both done this month, not june and within the time of aqua's reverts (within hours, not just days (as it was within a day), of each other)- were not given enough time to have given more discussions, hence I disagree with you agreeing with aqua's reverts. More opinions, would have been nice and the wiser thing to do. The news, while had been discussed in the past on the template talk of how it looked, usually had gotten changes like that, not changed via a userspace template via a main space/edit copy talk. Seems rather indirect in that respect. Also, for the news, there's community portal to add for discussions. Had been there before on the news and it's how it is to this date. 72.148.31.114 05:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please either read what I say, or refrain from responding to it.

"There was a gap of two days in between the reverts" - if you read what I said, you'd know I'm aware they both happened this month. Two days is a lot shorter a period in time than a month is. A F K When Needed 06:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "(within hours, not just days (as it was within a day), of each other)"  ?

The two reverts by Aqua happened with a period of time greater than two days in between them. A F K When Needed 06:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

GW Support Forum

I regret to say I've blocked you.

I don't appreciate being sent PMs ordering me to revert myself. Your message amounted to paranoia, and messages regarding GW2W are inappropriate there.

I have no idea why, but you are being quite hostile, and I do wish you'd step back and be a little more rational. You seem to be trying to "win the argument" more than anything. I can't for the life of me think of what Aqua has done to upset you, but I do hope you put it behind you. A F K When Needed 06:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Assumptions, Assumptions. It's because you refuse to look. So, here's proof -> here Shew's time stamp -> Revision as of 02:31, 21 January 2012. Aqua's revert (first revert) -> Revision as of 02:59, 21 January 2012 .

My time stamp -> Revision as of 04:05, 23 January 2012 Aqua's revert -> Revision as of 04:09, 23 January 2012

It was mentioned Shew changed it. Aqua basically in a rude manner stated the revert in a rather, imo, harsh tone/manner and not leaving much room for a discussion. Zesbeer wants it removed completely. So no one was in agreement with each other. Shew was ok, but no one opt for more discussion at all and the discussion oddly shifted from that to broswer talk. It was completely unclear of that talk and would easily be missed. Had i not done the new discussion of it, because I agree with shew's suggestion and propose it as well. Aqua seems to be the only one against it, keeping the old. So, who's in the right? No one, because it's currently being discussed. However, it should not have been reverted. Not either time. So, now that I have shown you the time stamps and one can see for him/herself the facts post. Was it too soon of reverts? did it get a chance for others to see and make suggestions? Imo, no, because you reveted as well agreeing with Aqua... So, let's let the others have their say. For all we know, you might be reverting yourself anyway. I'm just sayin' you might as well, considering the facts.

I don't appreciate you going to every talk page calling me a headhunter (which is basically, imo, what you're doing). When 1. the talk on Aqua's page has been there for quite a while and is questions that weren't answered, but with hostility and defensive. Imo, Aqua has merely been defensive with this edit mess, reverting proposals, dominating talks of others and not letting much of any others give their suggestions or really be a bigger help. I don't have to step back, I've been seeing this with skill designs, and other designs, that others try to get in more of a part with, but then that's it. I've noticed for a long while, for one to be having a problem - it's not me. If I was having such a personal problem. I wouldn't bring 1rr to the user talk. I'd taken it to noticeboard. I didn't, cause that's not my position anyway to catch. I only brought Aqua to the noticeboard, because someone needs to chill this person down. it's not Aqua's position to scream 1rr or to try to dominate. So, 1. it shouldn't have been bought here. Discussion on talk should be on talk, not about person - it doesn't get anywhere when it's on person. On Aqua's You can see I'm questioning, asking. Cause I'd rather understand, not assume. I'm not screaming 1rr and using discussions that's only got 2 people discussing on them and not clear anyway of what they were, just a couple of comments.

To be clear - Comments on that news - very few comments only. It didn't get it's own discussion. It got lost. Instead the editcopy got replaced with aqua's version. The talk didn't have it's own little section to discussion and fix or work on. It was like "Okay, Aqua's version" "that's fine". Let's give this senario - if it gets copied and pasted on the main page, and people go to update - would aqua's "template" be updated? It can cause a mess, because of a mess that was caused, not by me. I am and was just trying to fix that. I am sorry that I tried.

To be clear - Comments on the "welcome" text - two comments. One by Shew, other by Aqua. It got lost. I created a new topic for it, Aqua disses me basically on 1rr, with some other words that were not appropriate. I kept it to the topic. Not on Aqua. So, who's the "headhunter"? Really? who? If I can keep content discussion on the content and not the person, why can't the other?

I don't appreciate assumptions, when the evidence is there. It's on this page, it's on that page by you both. Shame. I'm gone. I dont' care if Auron does a permaban, it won't help handle those that assumes and goes after editors instead of content or who gets more defensive than me. I'm done. I try to help, give a proposal, get reverted without much talk. I can see how it is, it's more so propose whatever we can and push to publish it, forget making it look the best that it could. I'd be amused if people did complain later on about the background images. See, I'm a bit color blind and looking at it as it is - I can't read it. Oh, well. Thanks for what time I had. I'll go else where, where I'm appreciated. 72.148.31.114 09:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following the discussion, but everything you wrote there doesn't have anything to do with what AFK wrote. If it's true that you wrote him pm's on the support forums about matters on gw2w, then you went in the wrong. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, you know. --El_Nazgir 10:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ariyen, your claim that Aqua offensively reverted my edit is inaccurate. Aqua accompanied his revision with the following reply here: "How's that Shew? It fits, and written and maintained by the players feels awkward without explaining what is being written (even though it is implied)." It's a shame to see someone who really is involved with the wiki blocked, especially for such a timespan, but it was an action backed with reasoning. I hope you learn from this and find another wiki to dedicate yourself to, as you have great potential as a wiki contributor.-- Shew 14:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Zzz

Your talk page is already full of bitching and moaning about meaningless shit. You're already back to writing walls of text over nothing, sending angry emails, and making mountains out of molehills after a year-long block.

I'll be short and concise so even you will have trouble misconstruing my meaning - you are a detriment to this wiki. You cause more harm than good. The same arguments that have always been made still apply. Your attitude has not changed, you've only gotten more nasty *in private* (emails, pm's on forums) to avoid retribution for it. Unfortunately, people called you out on it - both when you abused the wiki mail feature to demand others make edits for you, and when you simply email them directly bashing them over pointless shit like the name of alcoholic drinks.

It's over. You can't play nice. You've had a billion chances to improve. You've had more blocks than any other person I know of in my entire history on these wikis. It's honestly a little ridiculous. But it's finally over.

On behalf of the wiki - thank you for your contributions, and I hope you have a happy life. Somewhere other than on this wiki. -Auron 13:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)