User talk:CrashDome

I'm pretty surprised by your reaction CrashDome. I never meant to disrespect you or to take any honor for any work you have done. I didn't delete your diagrams either and you can put them back in place anytime you like. It was just my personal opinion that these diagrams are simpler to understand, if you don't think so, let's talk about it.

I didn't rewrite many articles and reorganize the wiki to destroy everything that others have done before. I wanted to reformulate and reorganize things so that newcomers can easier find what they are searching for. I didn't take out any information that was there before and by all means don't want any "honor" for the stuff I've done. I don't care about that shit, this is a wiki.

But hell, if this wiki should be a success it needs a structure and a base. I invested a lot of time to do this, based on what was already there. Now go and improve it if you see missing or wrong things. But don't take my motivations as a personal affront against you. --hardrock 18:05, 22 December 2006 (CET)

BTW if you feel better: I wanted to make all these changes long ago, but never had the time for it.

ARRRRRRGGH - again I try and write somthing only for this software to lose it. That's neither here nor there now, let me say again. I would never have done any contributions that I didn't feel were good. To have someone walk up and without warning change everything I've been working on is like someone telling me I am retarded. I see you are making changes, but you mods seriously need to lay off a bit. You think you can structure this in one run? You are crazy. This is going to take time. How do you know that the way you are doing it now is going to be final?? Are we just expecting to see this consistant state of "restructuring" all the time and expect all our work to float around or be replaced all the time? Where is the community input in all of this??? You could have at least held a discussion in the talk pages or even PMd me about changes you wanted to make. And as far as re-replacing the diagrams... do you really want me to consistantly battle you over what goes in these pages? You should have never replaced them without discussion to begin with. I respect moderation authority and the ability to immediately change or remove offensive material or graffiti, but to expect me to believe you get the right to remove my work on your discretion simply because you "were intending to do it anyways..." is like a huge slap in the face. If you don't want me to take offense to your motivations then my best advice is to not act on them. --CrashDome 18:30, 22 December 2006 (CET)

Did I say I am doing it the right way? No. I am only saying that the general structure that was there before was non-existant, if not horrible. I know from enough people that no-one ever used this wiki since it was just too confusing. I don't mean your work or that it wasn't really good, to get me right on this. But everyone who wrote something just threw it somewhere, where noone would ever find it. Who the hell would ever have used or even found these confusing operator pages? The non-existant descriptions of control structures? This was badly needed.

Another thing that was needed was some common layout for pages. Everybody just pasted some plain text in here, every article looked different than the other. The reason is simple: There was nothing that anyone could use as template. Additionally, many of the articles had no clear focus. People just wrote in here what they new, and god thank them for that! I don't blame anyone here. But for this wiki to be useful, every article needs to focus on one topic, and not about a little of here, a little of there.

And now, that I had two days of time to modify the wiki (which I hadn't and won't have for months) I wanted to rearrange stuff so that we have at least a start. I never will stand behind anyone and modify his work. When my few days of time are over, I'll hardly have time to work a lot here, so I'm doing what I can now. Then people have at least something to start with and some guidelines or structures they can keep with. No article that I've written must stay this way. You know a better way of doing it? Please, do so. I don't care. I only know that the wiki now is at least a little better organized than before. Perfect? No way. But better.

I can't really express my feelings since English is not my native language. I don't want to offend anyone, I can only repeat. --hardrock 18:51, 22 December 2006 (CET)

And your diagrams are pointless. They tell nothing. They should elaborate visually on the material in the text to better clarify possible confusion. All yours do are show a neat way of restating the obvious. --CrashDome 18:33, 22 December 2006 (CET)

Shouldn't that be the way it works? They should underline the things said in the text so everything is clearly understandable. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

I'm sorry that I simply replaced your diagrams without discussing it first. This may not have been correct of me. I clearly apologize for that. --hardrock 18:57, 22 December 2006 (CET)

" my personal opinion that these diagrams are simpler to understand, if you don't think so, let's talk about it" -- I don't want to sound like a complete jackass but since I've already crossed that line I think - I will sya that you should have taken some of your own advice and opened up the talk pages before you went replacing them. --CrashDome 18:36, 22 December 2006 (CET)

---

CD you know that the wiki has a full history and all stuff be reverted any day very quickly ?! --WGL.Q 19:58, 22 December 2006 (CET)

Yes, however, something like that I feel is above me. I would rather have a few people agree it needs to be reverted first. If I just went back and reverted his changes, I can assure you he'd be as pissed at me for undoing his work as I was at him. It also does nothing but foster revision wars... but thanks for mentioning. Cheers --CrashDome 20:29, 22 December 2006 (CET)

i agree my friend. i had the impression that you were unaware of this feature as we were talking about your work being lost. so i was only about this detail. --WGL.Q 08:23, 23 December 2006 (CET)