User talk:Ilr/Archive
Contributions[edit]
Feedback/Critique on Wiki contributions tolerated and even encouraged, but try to keep it positive.
(...failing that, atleast make a solid case and don't insult me by bringing a knife to a gunfight!) --ilr 04:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I came here to ask you to use a date tag in the sig, but I see you already got that one fixed. --Xeeron 14:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Considering that no real + new features have been released(from Anet) since basically last year, I'd contest that NOTHING is date-sensitive right now. But hey, I can always go back and re-sign any truly time-sensitive comments. ...just like I can also manually write a date in any way I choose or none at all for talk that threads out beyond 1 response. But thanks for stopping by anyway & only half-way nitpicking said "issue"... --ilr 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- People use timestamps to see when a comment was made, when to archive, and to generally get an idea whether that person will see a reply (recent comments would imply activity). It's easier to just have the wiki automatically enter the timestamp instead of you manually doing it, and it also makes every timestamp consistent in format, making it that much more easier to quickly see when a comment was made. --
Pling \ talk 15:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- And I don't like the current format, it's too Verbose. Someone needs to take a hint from Powers-Descriptions dept at Anet and allow for a more concise version, plz/thx. (obviously complaining about it on my own page won't help... just letting you know where I stand on it, thanks) --ilr (Sep, 2008)
- I don't think it's even possible to change; it's the way MediaWiki (the software) creates it. I certainly don't think they are too verbose; in fact, your "concise" version isn't helpful - you can get a multitude of comments in "Sep, 2008", and just putting that doesn't put the comments from September 2008 in any order; it doesn't serve the purpose of a timestamp. The timestamp includes all the things necessary for correct ordering and context -- time, date, timezone. Nothing in there is unnecessary, long, or confusing. -- Pling \ talk 22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Understood, but the real question is: Is this a dictatorship(sponsored by Anet itself I'll point out) where I'll be banned for choosing to sign my comments different from the way you choose? If it's not, then there's nothing to left to discuss on this tangent. --ilr (Sep 2008)
- No no, I'm not saying you'll be banned (and I apologise if it sounds that way); I just think you should take the advice given in order to help other people see when your comments were made, regardless of whether you may be banned or not. Even now, I have to look in recent changes or the page history to see what time your comment was made (and if I saw this any later, I'd probably need to look for the day as well). The default timestamp is the way it is for a reason, and I think having everyone use that is helpful. In my opinion, it's not so much of a case of "I should do it otherwise I'd be banned" as it is "I should do it to help other people". Is that worth taking into consideration? -- Pling \ talk 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- No no, I'm not saying you'll be banned (and I apologise if it sounds that way); I just think you should take the advice given in order to help other people see when your comments were made, regardless of whether you may be banned or not. Even now, I have to look in recent changes or the page history to see what time your comment was made (and if I saw this any later, I'd probably need to look for the day as well). The default timestamp is the way it is for a reason, and I think having everyone use that is helpful. In my opinion, it's not so much of a case of "I should do it otherwise I'd be banned" as it is "I should do it to help other people". Is that worth taking into consideration? --
- Understood, but the real question is: Is this a dictatorship(sponsored by Anet itself I'll point out) where I'll be banned for choosing to sign my comments different from the way you choose? If it's not, then there's nothing to left to discuss on this tangent. --ilr (Sep 2008)
- I don't think it's even possible to change; it's the way MediaWiki (the software) creates it. I certainly don't think they are too verbose; in fact, your "concise" version isn't helpful - you can get a multitude of comments in "Sep, 2008", and just putting that doesn't put the comments from September 2008 in any order; it doesn't serve the purpose of a timestamp. The timestamp includes all the things necessary for correct ordering and context -- time, date, timezone. Nothing in there is unnecessary, long, or confusing. --
- And I don't like the current format, it's too Verbose. Someone needs to take a hint from Powers-Descriptions dept at Anet and allow for a more concise version, plz/thx. (obviously complaining about it on my own page won't help... just letting you know where I stand on it, thanks) --ilr (Sep, 2008)
- People use timestamps to see when a comment was made, when to archive, and to generally get an idea whether that person will see a reply (recent comments would imply activity). It's easier to just have the wiki automatically enter the timestamp instead of you manually doing it, and it also makes every timestamp consistent in format, making it that much more easier to quickly see when a comment was made. --
- Considering that no real + new features have been released(from Anet) since basically last year, I'd contest that NOTHING is date-sensitive right now. But hey, I can always go back and re-sign any truly time-sensitive comments. ...just like I can also manually write a date in any way I choose or none at all for talk that threads out beyond 1 response. But thanks for stopping by anyway & only half-way nitpicking said "issue"... --ilr 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Apologies for leaving this conversation hanging (got involved in some heavier lifting back on the original Wiki. ... Plus the lack of GW2 news pretty much cemented my inattentiveness here). But anyway, Here is my pledge to "the official" community: I won't be rockin' the Boat b/c I don't plan to be part of you. ...That's not me being Uppity or anything, I'm just saying I will go stand in the periphery and remain there until summoned inward. I know how it works. So don't go through the bother of listing every unjustified little protocol unless there's gonna be an over-all reduction in nagging Bureaucracy, and more flexibility allowed in the future (and thus, a real reason to feel personally invested). Now let's get back to growing our old-man beards waiting for what is still currently vapor-ware :D --ilr 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- As part of the bureaucracy, I resent that comment. I will make it my personal mission to add the time and date to all of your comments until you do, if you so choose that course of action. (Because you know I love harassing you.) Vili
03:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
