User talk:Ramei Arashi/Archive2010

Some people have a lot of nerv. Its my choice when my talk page gets archived no one elses. Ramei Arashi 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

actually that isn't true. You cannot archive a page just so that you get the last word. Stop being so childish. Also, archiving does not mean deleting, as you have done here. You should read the article on how not to be a dick. Also, to ensure that you are familiar with the works, please read the policies regarding talk page restrictions. Please review where it says "Do not remove any comments, including your own." and "You are permitted to archive older comments". I will restore the content that you removed from your page once more. This will be the last time I do, please ensure that you do not vandalize your own page. Please be aware that I am currently not following the policies outlined in the article about vandals, but I believe in second chances. Venom20 03:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not welcome here. Please don't post again. Your the vandal and if you interfere again I will file a complaint with the administrators. Ramei Arashi 13:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free, I will not fuel your troll-ishness Venom20 14:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What a jerk. Goes to other peoples pages and buts in where he's not wanted. And then has the nerve to call me a troll. Ramei Arashi 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably a tad late posting this but Venom, what does it mean to you if this person gets the last word in? If anything, getting frustrated because someone "got the last word in" is equally childish (if not more) than archiving to have the last word in. Also, Ramei was actually saying he doesn't want continue the said discussion any longer, archiving was only a logical thing to do knowing how suspectable this wiki is to drama fests. Not to mention that anyone who continues a discussion after being told that no further replies would be made, is either trolling or is quite moronic. Just my two cents! Have a nice day. :3 --Super Igor 21:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Actually, Venom is right though. You can't archive an active discussion, unless you place in there that you wish for this discussion to no longer continue, etc. Ariyen 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No he's not. It's arrogant to go to some once elses talk page and tell them how they must handle it. He's just a bully. Ramei Arashi 21:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's common courtesy to inform another user where they have gone wrong, so they do not make the same mistake again. Also, I fail to see how attempting to help and advise you is "bullying". ShadowRunner 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't attempting to advice me was trying to take over. Ramei Arashi 02:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Archives redlinked

Don't know if you wanted to address this, but when clicking on your archive, one notices there is a redlink. The archive link in your archived folder leads to User talk:Ramei Arashi/Archive/Archive (which doesn't exist). You might want to address this, or you will have many /archives to contend with. Venom20 03:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome Venom20 15:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Redlinks were burning, so I thought I would get rid of it while saying 'hi'. So... Hello! and (late)-welcome!--Corsair@Yarrr 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hai! A F K When Needed 21:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Elementalist

Nobody said the Elementalist has only one weapon at a time; merely that they only have "access to" one weapon at a time. As Elementalists cannot wield four staves, two wands and a sword at the same time the statement is perfectly valid.

I didn't have to interpret anything, what it originally said was misleading. The other version made it appear the elementalist could never change its weapon. Which is not true, as long as not in combat all professions can change weapons and skills. Some can also change between two sets in combat. Ramei Arashi 06:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually disagree... did you think it implied an Elementalist was forever stuck with one weapon? I'd like to know exactly what you thought it meant just in case, but I find it to be unlikely that I'll agree with you. A F K When Needed 13:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is what it said. Ramei Arashi 03:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It stated the Elementalist was only capable of wielding a single weapon set at a time and that is perfectly true and accurate - no I don't need to play the game before claiming so.

Nobody would ever interpret it that way because it is so entirely against common sense that it's nigh on impossible for someone to be naive enough to believe that's even true. Let's examine the context, shall we?

"The elementalist has access to only one weapon set at any given time. There are five possible weapon sets for elementalists."

You're arguing that there's two ways of interpreting that information. Not only is such unlikely, but it is contradicted by the very next sentence. "You can only have a weapon set. You can have five weapon sets" just doesn't make sense no matter what way you look at it. Unless you wish to dispute my interpretation of that revision? A F K When Needed 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop posting your nonsense on my page Ramei Arashi 03:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Active conversations

Please do not remove any active conversations off of your pages. This is a poor attempt at getting "the last word". Since the last post was by yourself today, this is in fact an active conversation. Venom20 16:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)