User talk:Dan Dan Teddy Bearz
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Other
*Ahem*[edit]
(Edit conflict) Although I admire the boldness in removing that pointless discussion from this talk page, archiving things that immediately isn't always the best idea. Especially not something of that nature, where an "opposing" side could view it as an attempt to get a "last word" and get even more aggravated. Also, I was about to edit, and dislike being edit conflicted on such a grand scale. :P To get in a quick word about what we can do on this wiki, transferred from my original edit, is that while many users can't document GW2 as new data pours in, they can improve documentation of existing material, which is how it will be for quite some time. -
03:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't specified it, but I'm leaving that discussion open, just off of my talk page. I don't like having my talk page cluttered with drama. Archiving it didn't close it, just moved it. Aside from that, most of what I check seems perfectly fine. There aren't as many grammar issues on this wiki as there were/have been on GW1W, but that's most likely because GW2 isn't out yet and so there aren't as many users editing so hastily. I believe I have made a few grammatical fixes on this wiki, but it may have been GW1W. I don't remember. Teddy Dan 04:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of intention, moving a current discussion into a subpage labeled 'Archive #' gives the impression that you are "euthanising" the discussion. Similarly, we wouldn't know that the discussion is still open since you placed it in a "graveyard". --Riddle 05:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) No, archives are by their nature meant to be left unchanged. It's unacceptable to archive topics on your talk page when the last edit is still at the top of recent changes. I would personally suggest waiting at least 24 hours after the most recent post to archive a discussion. In this case I don't mind much, but realize that it's also the prerogative of anyone involved in the discussion to unarchive and replace it.
05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- My bad, then. Those were not my intentions. If someone wants to move it back, go right ahead. However, pending any additions by Auron himself, the discussion will likely be closed quite soon. I no longer wish to discuss an individual with people who are not said individual, nor do I wish to discuss the subject of my behavior until someone can say, honestly and without contest, that simply defending myself (especially on my own talk page) when I am wronged is itself wholly wrong or that singling me out because of it is wholly right. I have no desire to humor malicious talk or intentions, be they obvious or not. If documenting the game and/or improving the wiki are truly in your best interests then the previous (mistakenly archived) discussion is not. I was told to let it die and not try to have the "last word". I feel everyone else should heed the same advice before demanding it of others. Teddy Dan 05:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are by no means obligated to respond to people, but you do need to keep the discussion accessible for a reasonable length of time. That's pretty much the only requirement. 05:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. I'll try my best to remember. One question: If I no longer wish a prolonged discussion (especially one in which I no longer wish to take part) to remain in continuum on my talk page, what do I do about it? Teddy Dan 05:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't want it pinging your talk page anymore, give it a subpage like User talk:Dan Dan Teddy Bearz/Dumb and use the move template to show where it's gone. 05:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- So I can move it to a subpage, just not archive it. Okay. Makes some sense. Teddy Dan 05:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, I'm at a loss. I've forgotten how to move. Was it #redirect? Teddy Dan 05:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is a move tab at the top of the page, but in this case, I would just cut+paste to a new page. 06:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone who wants to resume the discussion would have to check RC. Is that wise? Teddy Dan 06:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- What I would do is keep the header on this page, and under it use Template:moved to indicate the new location. 09:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- What I would do is keep the header on this page, and under it use Template:moved to indicate the new location.
- Anyone who wants to resume the discussion would have to check RC. Is that wise? Teddy Dan 06:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is a move tab at the top of the page, but in this case, I would just cut+paste to a new page.
- Come to think of it, I'm at a loss. I've forgotten how to move. Was it #redirect? Teddy Dan 05:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- So I can move it to a subpage, just not archive it. Okay. Makes some sense. Teddy Dan 05:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't want it pinging your talk page anymore, give it a subpage like User talk:Dan Dan Teddy Bearz/Dumb and use the move template to show where it's gone.
- Thank you for clarifying. I'll try my best to remember. One question: If I no longer wish a prolonged discussion (especially one in which I no longer wish to take part) to remain in continuum on my talk page, what do I do about it? Teddy Dan 05:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are by no means obligated to respond to people, but you do need to keep the discussion accessible for a reasonable length of time. That's pretty much the only requirement.
- My bad, then. Those were not my intentions. If someone wants to move it back, go right ahead. However, pending any additions by Auron himself, the discussion will likely be closed quite soon. I no longer wish to discuss an individual with people who are not said individual, nor do I wish to discuss the subject of my behavior until someone can say, honestly and without contest, that simply defending myself (especially on my own talk page) when I am wronged is itself wholly wrong or that singling me out because of it is wholly right. I have no desire to humor malicious talk or intentions, be they obvious or not. If documenting the game and/or improving the wiki are truly in your best interests then the previous (mistakenly archived) discussion is not. I was told to let it die and not try to have the "last word". I feel everyone else should heed the same advice before demanding it of others. Teddy Dan 05:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) No, archives are by their nature meant to be left unchanged. It's unacceptable to archive topics on your talk page when the last edit is still at the top of recent changes. I would personally suggest waiting at least 24 hours after the most recent post to archive a discussion. In this case I don't mind much, but realize that it's also the prerogative of anyone involved in the discussion to unarchive and replace it.
- Regardless of intention, moving a current discussion into a subpage labeled 'Archive #' gives the impression that you are "euthanising" the discussion. Similarly, we wouldn't know that the discussion is still open since you placed it in a "graveyard". --Riddle 05:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I come in peace[edit]
- ← moved to User: Dan Dan Teddy Bearz/Open Drama
As per instruction. The subject is still considered "open" on the new page.
I'm out.[edit]
- Bye --Riddle 05:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can I come? Where are you going? --Xu Davella 07:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
