User talk:KitchM

From ArchWiki

Could you please explain why you keep reformatting the Beginners' Guide talk page? Looking through the edit history, many of your edits serve only to hamper readability, in my opinion. Additionally, you appear to blame Thisoldman when Time is the one who is attempting to reformat in order to improve readability.

First case: your latest edit places your paragraph which begins "I agree with Misfit" before Misfit's comment!

Second case: you reverted edits which placed your "Don't Panic" section under the "Suggestions" heading -- was it not a suggestion, or do you simply feel your points deserve more attention than anyone else's?

I only wish to understand your reasoning before reverting edits. Thanks.

-- pointone 16:40, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Agreed. Don't take indent edits as personal offence... Time 17:42, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Thanks for asking, Pointone. Part of your own information was wrong as well. Both Time and Thisoldman have been editing my posts.
First, I don't mind if they edit their own, but they are my posts and not theirs. Editing mine is just rude. It is pretty presumbtuous to do that with anyone!
Second, they were both wrong, as are you. My comment comes in direct relationship to Misfit's first suggestion and his request for comments. That is why I finally just moved mine up in line with that. I also properly used one colon to indent one level, since that is correct at that point. Please note that I was not replying to his follow-up comment.
But the other people were completely wrong because they don't understand how indents work in a comment hierarchy. One indent is for reference to the initial comment. Two indents are for any reference to one of those. Three is in reference to any with two, etc., etc.. Obviously they just don't get it. My comment was obviously and properly on the same level as Time's. To double indent it is to make it a commment to Time, which it clearly is not.
I really don't understand how this simple and comment methodology is not understood by everyone. This ignorance causes a lot problems, and it could be avoided by just asking one of us who know better.
Regarding your second point, I specifically wanted it to be it's own section because it is an issue between Misfit and I. It is not a suggestion; it is a statement of fact. (Some of the time he does well, and sometimes he doesn't get it. But what can you do?) It stands alone as a commment on another shortsighted edit.
Sometimes I don't get it? Well, sometimes I suppose I don't. Let me be completely transparent here-- Although it is apparent that we each have our differences at times, I believe we share good intentions toward the wiki. If, you truly feel I am 'not getting' something, I respectfully request you either contact me directly or think twice and keep an open mind about my motives. Further, I hope we can set aside our obvious differences in style and priorities and progress toward more productive cooperation. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help you. And, let me take this moment to thank all of you for your contributions. I (and the rest of the world) truly appreciate it. Misfit138 22:02, 8 December 2009 (EST)
I really don't understand the reason behind all the editing of the talk page. Everyone who starts another subject should be starting a new section. This is the way it is done on most other wiki pages, and I don't know who it was but editing these are not helpful at all.
In any case, I hope you can now understand what is going on. I am offended when inexperienced and less knowledgable people continue to edit things they can't understand. Case in point, check out Thisoldman's page. Write good? In English class we say "write well". Everything else becomes suspect at that point. There is no excuse for poor editing when those with more experience stand ready to help. My suggestion to all would be to please ask before making any changes to anyone's comments.
Thanks for asking. I hope that answers your questions. - KitchM 19:56, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Case in point, check out Thisoldman's page. Write good? In English class we say "write well".
I couldn't stop laughing last night when I read this. I think you ought to re-read his user page carefully. ;)
Either way, I see your point now. Arguably, both indentation styles are "correct", depending on personal interpretation. I agree it is rude to edit content of another user's post, but I believe you are overreacting to these minor stylistic edits. Please try to keep an open mind -- your opinion is not fact, and a wiki thrives on collaboration, not protectionism.
-- pointone 16:41, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Reread it? You are refering to a page that belongs to a particular person. This is what he stands for. Why would he write something which purposefully misleads the reader? Is that your implication? I am too busy to go back over something that had a bad beginning in the first place.
There's no "protectionism" on my part. Maybe you're referring to Misfit138. He's the only one who gets away with stopping all posts he doesn't agree with, and locking out people whose comments he doesn't like. That is not me and never will be.
However, what exists is an edit that misplaces a person's post and thereby changes the content by misdirecting the intent. I believe you are the one overreacting by protesting another individual's preference for not being edited. If it was important, then it should have been left alone. If it isn't important, then it should have been left alone. But worse yet is your attempt at defending an indefensible position. How dare anyone rewrite someone's personal viewpoint. Who do they think they are? It remains rude, thoughtless and egotistical in the extreme, and such acts remain totally without justification.
Actually, both indentation styles are not correct. That is the whole point. When people don't know how, they should just leave it alone.
Further, a wiki is one thing, but a talk page is something else entirely. I hope you can begin to see the difference or you should not be writing here. And by the way, a lot of what I write is not opinion; it is fact. - KitchM 02:01, 10 December 2009 (EST)
KitchM, Thisoldman's user page is being ironic by criticizing errors that appear on the same sentence that is pointing out the mistake. Not only is this immediately apparent, it's also ridiculous that you are saying it's misleading; because even if it were misleading, you still need to remember that it is just a user page. And it's even more worrisome that someone has to point this out to you. You seem to get upset over nothing... how about we all stop flaming for no reason? Time 03:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Time, you obviously missed the point. Nothing you have stated changes any point I made. However, at this point in time, I am unconvinced that you will be able to understand, and there is no percentage in trying to explain it to you.
I only responded because you and the others commented. That is all I ever do. (Feel free to go back over all my posts and check.) I never attack unless I'm provoked and even then, I often don't. So this comes down to the fact that the only one flaming for no reason are those who chose to attack me. Why don't you get over it? Can't you learn to leave other people alone? Why do you people want to continually stir up trouble? You're not helping anything. The poor attempts to make something more readable is a joke and only caused trouble. Don't you folks have something better to do? You're certainly not helping the Wiki in any way.
It is indeed shocking that someone would force another into explaining something that should have been left unspoken, and then have the gall to complain that such represents flaming! That's as dumb and shortsighted as it gets. What the heck were they thinking in the first place?
And don't presume to know what I am thinking or feeling. You have no clue unless you ask me; something you didn't do. - KitchM 13:00, 10 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for starting this pointless discussion -- I simply took offense to your seemingly baseless complaint against Thisoldman (and still, I can find no evidence to support your claim). All I can say is thank goodness you are here, because clearly no one else understands the intricacies of wiki editing.
-- pointone 12:52, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Pointone, your false apology is unsurprising. Still like to poke the bear? - KitchM 13:00, 10 December 2009 (EST)

This amused me :P Allan 22:14, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Start a discussion with KitchM

Start a discussion