User talk:Shadeinthebox

PvX:WELL Tags
If you are the author of a build, you cannot remove this tag from it (as the tag itself states in bold). You reverted Krschkr twice, which also breaks our policy on reverts. Please do not revert war as it is unproductive. As the build stands, it is not suitable for the Build space, but you may move it to your user space for your own reference. -Toraen (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, also do not frivolously post WELL tags on other builds just because a build you submitted was tagged. It's not an attack on you, the build is just not competitive with other options on the site. -Toraen (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There ISNT other options on the site
 * Other options = other assassin builds. The assassin class doesn't function well as a healer role, so you won't see assassin healer builds here. Half-range skill user isn't a valuable & essential role itself, it's only as good as the skills it uses (most half-range skills are not good). -Toraen (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Your ban
Lashing out and ignoring warnings is not how you get your way here. When your ban is up you can either contribute in a civil manner or not at all. -Toraen (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent changes
Before I'm going to revert two of your recent changes I'd like you to understand why: "the build was created by me to allow people to farm the green. however they can choose to do either mode, and if someone wanted to add a versi..." – please take note of PvXwiki:Article Ownership. It's the article's content's quality and not its author which decides what content the page should have and how it is presented. Restoring the prior build version while keeping the new one creates a hard to navigate build page with two almost identical builds. Instead of reverting the build to a worse version you should accept the improvement to keep a higher quality build article. Also, if you happen to move pages in the future, please suppress the creation of a redirect, following PvXwiki:Redirect. "a lot of the changes made took way too much information out, so i basically reverted it but kept some of the more notible improvements without loss of information" The only content information your revert restored is a redundant variant suggestion. A farming build page should only present the optimal build for this farming location, so we don't need any variants there. Everything else you restored are parts of the page which have been changed to adhere to the style guidelines. Regardless, it's good to see you're still interested in contributing to PvX. But you should invest your effort into improving and adding content instead of reverting other users' improvements to it. --Krschkr (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC) You could simply have added a note to the build description that the farm can also be performed in normal mode without the IMS hero. I had moved the page after performing the changes in accordance with your brightclaw farming page, as I respect your initial design choices for the page. If you object to that, why don't you move that farm aswell? And again, it does not matter whether you intended the farm to be for hard or normal mode. The improved version can be used for both, only adding advantages. There was no point in your revert and page cluttering. Of course, as much as you aren't the owner of that build page, neither am I. I'm fully aware of that. Nonetheless there are good policies to follow and I've given you links to them. Please read them and understand why the changes you reverted had been performed. --Krschkr (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PvXwiki:Article retention – for links to the english Guild Wars wikis please use interwiki links.
 * There's no need for a thorough explanation of the weapon set. Else you'd have to explain 4 weapon sets on every build page in the wiki, bloating it unnessecarily. A link to the respective page/section in either of the wikis (see the former point) or Guide:PvE Equipment is sufficient.
 * PvXwiki:Style and formatting – attribute runes (and on which piece of armour you apply them) are not to be listed as they are part of the build template.
 * Your revert didn't restore any information in the usage section, only a less concise formulation. In fact, it even removed information on how to play the build that had been added by the reverted edits.
 * its not a worse version, its a better version to do it in normal mode if people just want to farm for the green? there is nothing to discuss there about what i changed. however feel free to start a discussion if youd like to discuss changes or improvements Shadeinthebox (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * what you think is fine and what others like is different, the information you removed has been very helpful to many people, and is just lacking to what you changed it to. imrpoving it is not up to only one persons views, it is up to everyones. and if you would like to try and improve things from your perspective, feel free to discuss it on the discussion pages before ruining the pages others made Shadeinthebox (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly: A build version which works both in hard and normal mode is better than one that works in normal mode only. If people prefer to farm in hard mode, they can use the improved build. Even if you disagree with this that's no justification to clutter the page as you did. --Krschkr (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondly: The reverts' changes are mainly making the pages less concise and filled with information that is, following the policies, not meant to be on these pages in the first place. Please point out the information which you consider not falling under these issues. Also, using the correct interwiki links is not ruining pages. Please actually read what my objections to your changes are before dismissing them. --Krschkr (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * a page can be cleaned up, thats fine, and i am currently doing that. But there is no reason for limit it to JUST hm when theres perfectly valid reasons to farm it in NM and was intended for that. having the option to go into HM and farm for elite tomes is def a good thing, i never added it because i figured it did not matter, but i agree it does matter and it can be added. also, the only thing wrong with it is a couple formatting things maybe at this point regarding brightclaw. just because YOU want to keep things your way and as minimal as possible, does not mean that when someone else makes something, they cannot add a few extra words in there if they feel as needed. this is not your site. again, if you have anything regaurding changing information on the page, open a discussion, if its just small simple formatting, feel free to change away with reasons left behind. Shadeinthebox (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I did perform changes to the style and formatting following the policies, alas, you went to revert them. What you're currently cleaning up is the content you added with your reverts, so what's your point? "But there is no reason for limit it to JUST hm when theres perfectly valid reasons to farm it in NM and was intended for that."
 * I am slowly cleaning the pages now, i did not actually revert your changes, but had to actually just put my own information back since almost all of it was removed for yours. it is easier to add mine back and slowly swap and replace the small improvements and changes. back tracking? maybe, but this could have been avoided if it was brought up in discussions first and not revamping a whole page to mostly your personal preference. i do agree some things did need a change and some still might. which is why im changing and updating things now as i look into them. Shadeinthebox (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if the revert function was not used, that initial edit to restore your version is a revert (of all the changes since the version you restored from). No one is required to get permission from the original poster of a page to edit on a wiki. Wikis don't work like that. Changes can sometimes be drastic and our formatting guidelines do prefer a more concise style to build pages. They are not solely Krschr's preferences or my own, but what the PvX community settled on being the standard. The guidelines can be ignored when a build has a special case making them unwieldy, and even be rewritten if we find something just isn't working. Entirely separate skillbars/equipement/usage sections for normal and hard modes is generally unnecessary though. The hard mode version should take precedence (generally higher profits), and any normal mode suggestions can be made in their relevant sections (eg. "Only need the 40/40 Domination set in NM").
 * Also, even if you disagree with someone's edits it's usually better to first ask for an explanation of the edits before reverting as you did (unless their edit was unambiguously vandalism - not the case here). This is what Krschr has done by addressing you with this section, basically, although I'd have preferred he respond to your last comment before going ahead with his revert. Not much unique information has been lost from either page (going by the differences between your last edits to each page and the current versions), and any information that needs to be added back can just be added to the current version instead of redoing a bunch of work. If you need a scratchpad space for checking what you want to add back, copy your old version into a userspace page.
 * Shade, I will also take this moment to tell you that you tend to blow issues out of proportion. Edits to pages you created are not attacks on you. Each of us is trying to contribute to PvX and make it better. We all won't agree all the time. PvX has just accepted that people will be bold and make edits rather than get trapped in a loop of meandering discussions about potential changes, and the reasonable users will talk out their disagreements. Accusing others of bias against you or mental disease is the opposite of reasonable discourse. A notable amount of your interactions with this site as of late have been with a hostile attitude and it's not helpful to people trying to work with you or for getting your points across. Stop assuming bad faith on our parts please, we're just people who devote some of our shrinking spare time to editing a builds wiki for an old game because we like the game enough to try to maintain a resource for it. Assume good faith in edits and don't jump to hostility when someone makes a change you disagree with. If you truly want to leave PvXwiki, then I guess nothing I'm saying matters, but you've made several very good contributions and shouldn't feel that having some contributions not last is some statement directed at you. Many longtime users of PvX have had many of their submissions go down in flames entirely. -Toraen (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact all the useful information I added for people gets removed is the reason I am done with this nonsense. I explained in discord why the information is important and valid but no matter what happens only my stuff gets targetted by this guy, even when its 100% important. So yeah, done with this wank fest of a site. And yes, this is the reason it is dead. It is not just me who complains, its only me who tries to continue working with it. Shadeinthebox (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Me/Mo Bezzr Wingstorm farm tutorial
Hey, I was interested in trying out the Bezzr Wingstorm farming build and you said you didn't mind instructing people in-game. I just reached the Eternal Grove outpost with my mesmer so I'm ready to try. Any chance we could meet up and go practice? I'm not sure how to send e-mails through Gamepedia if you don't want to post your character name for privacy reasons. For the sake of the build it would also be nice if you thought about how to explain it to me (I know the game but I'm new to farming) and we can see if there's anything we can do to improve the explanations on the page. How's that sound? :) Sacropedia (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to. That sounds like a great idea, I do not mind sharing my discord publically, Shade#2029 if you use discord? Shadeinthebox (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! I've sent you a request; my discord is similar to my wiki name. I'm not sure when exactly I will have time but we can discuss that on discord then. :) Sacropedia (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)