User talk:Ulithium Dragon
Elemental Bar Page Edits[edit source]
All you had to do was change the "left" in the image link to "right". Geez.20:03, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the edit I spent a long time on - I don't know HOW you failed to see that MY version ACTUALLY placed the image INLINE with the dissasembly template, while your "revert" has it alliged ABOVE the element in a much less "aligned" way.
I'm going to put it back once since what I did was a visual improvement - if you feel this is "not ok", just revert it again I guess, and please don't smack me or anything... >_< Ulithium Dragon (talk) 20:06, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
- The extraneous code you added isn't worth the minimal visual appeal. MolMan 20:08, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but how is a single miniscule HTML code segment going to "slow down the page" or anything else that would cause any measurable negative impact...? Ulithium Dragon (talk) 20:09, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
- For one is makes that page a mess to read source wise. Your edit is hardly much different than Ansela's. And hers is more editor friendly. MolMan 20:11, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I don't want to imagine what subsequent edits using the visual editor (aka that thing 90% of newbies use) would do to that coding. 20:13, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh* I suppose you're right - thew new "visual editor" is extremely "buggy" imo, and honestly needed A LOT more work at the current *stage* in it's "development" before it's should have been pushed out for "open use"...
- For example, I still preferr to make all my edits in the "source editor", and the *NEW* editor just... breaks that thing like CRAZY - it has NO "preview" option, and stripped out ALL of the very "easy to read" syntax highlighting we used to have on the now dubbed "classic editor" (which DID have some rather annoying issues, sure, i.e. editing templates). I still use the "classic source editor" almost exclusivly... :L
- I DO, however, take some *slight* offence to you saying that "...it makes it a mess to read source-wise...", as I even put in comments so that would, ya know, *NOT* be the case... =.= Ulithium Dragon (talk) 20:33, March 20, 2016 (UTC)