User talk:Shade

Archive
Past discussion from 2011 archived to: User talk:Shade/2011

Research wikiquette more before making poor and incorrect guesses and accusations tech13. You're already in a poor position to quote it as is considering how many recent violations you've made.

Here's the direct quote and link for you anyways:

And why what you did was wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages Shade (Contributions • Message) 16:18, April 25, 2012 (EDT)


 * It violated...


 * When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page, if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war.
 * "being dogmatic or uncommunicative..." is the key violation on this one. You can not be much more uncommunicative than deleting a post by another user.
 * Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
 * "Avoid reverts whenever possible..." is the violation here..

Please explain what relevance my anti-reversion of a valid user comment has to do with:

Firstly, it wasn't a substantial edit, it was an attempt to correct a reversion that was made in violation of policy. Secondly, "(although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)", my revision of your violation was "administrator attention".

Now, I feel that our head on, in your face, back and forth unofficially-declared war needs to end at this point. So, let us set this difference aside, and focus on making this a better wiki for everyone. I feel that everyone would be best served if we can eat our feelings of disagreement, animosity, and/or hurt that we may feel towards each other, and resolve to work together from this point forth. This is the exit of this issue. I feel that any continuation of this, should be resolved in a community chat of all interested parties to be hosted by, , , or. If you feel that further discussion is required, I have no issue sending out a simple email, pm on the forum, and poi links on the people qualified as administrators talk pages. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 17:01, April 25, 2012 (EDT)



You really need to properly examine and fully read the wikiquette, as you don't seem to understand it at all.

Primarily: You don't seem to get the difference in talk pages, user talk pages, and actual articles. The rules you quoted obious only apply to actual articles, and not talk pages, and especially not user talk pages. Do you think they are gona write guidelines which directly conflict each other as the one I've quoted certain does. No. The ones you quoted do not apply to user talk pages owned by the user. Period. Aside from that, I did provide a fair reason: I don't allow personal attacks i've already read on my user talk page. Thats perfectly acceptable wikiquette.

B) You inserted a personal attack on my userpage by reverting my edits. I consider that an extremely "substantial".

C) If you at all felt you were in the right here, you would of reverted my edits again. You did not. So thats your poor way of conceeding your wrong I guess. You could of actually followed wikiquette and personally conceded the point and act rationally tho, rather then pasting in incorrect wikiquette that doesnt apply to the situation.

D) I'm making no attempts at war here. You are. You edited my user talk page - of another users edit, with zero cause, falsely accused me among other things.
 * If you TRUELY cared to stop attacking me, you would of ignored the edit, not reverted it and falsely accused me of anything.
 * I get you want to defend your actions, but to anyone rational reading this, you only digging yourself deeper.

I wish to end it and have taken every measure I can. You continue to violate policies, insult and personally attack me. I have never insulted nor attacked you in any fashion, nor violated any wikiquette. At this point it's up to Xevo and yoko5000 to decide what to do.

I'm not going to respond to any further comments you make on my talk page as you don't seem to care at all to communicate rationally, and will instead delete them - as that is fully within my rights to do, without breaking wikiquette. Shade (Contributions • Message) 17:24, April 25, 2012 (EDT)


 * We can discuss why you feel that you have the right to dictate what pages certain rules of wikiquette are applicable or not to all administrators of the wiki in a group forum with all of the administrators, and perhaps useful clarifications of agreement can be added to expand wikiquette.

In response to "C", your re-revision states that the entire page would be archived, this is not a deletion. Therefor, until the archival is complete, and the edit is not there, it is not a re-deletion of the content. If however, the content is not there upon your creation of the archival, I would consider that a third revert revision.

In response to "D", I do not believe that any of my statements or assessments are false. That is your opinion, which you have a right to. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 17:53, April 25, 2012 (EDT)

DPS calculator
I never did see a response in regards to my request for your assistance on creating a calculator that can help a player decide if it is better to build this weapon or that weapon for the purposes of over-coming a specific (type of) mob's resistances. Are you interested? If you are not interested, I accept that. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 17:53, April 25, 2012 (EDT)


 * Please see the associated thread on the DDO Forums. ShoeMaker (Contributions &bull; Message) 18:05, April 25, 2012 (EDT)

The battle against nopic
Your personal project User:Shade has multiple files that violate the naming policy. Would you please rename and re-upload the files according to said policy. Thank you. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 17:53, April 25, 2012 (EDT)


 * Grandfather clause. Those were made before the naming policy were written and the Generic orb pics were created. No need to upload, rename etc as the wiki has focus orb images on wiki alrdy. When someone decides to edit those pages again they can use the many images from here Focus Orb. Even I decided to let them be. If its possible create a bot to replace Shades pics those with those from the focus orb section. Bladedge (Contributions &bull; Message) 18:25, April 25, 2012 (EDT)


 * Shade has personally attacked me for pages and things that I made way before his policies were accepted (as far as I am concerned, they are still not accepted), but considering he is being so hard up to enforce them to 100% being very rude about his requests to follow the policy, I am not willing to be any lighter on him than he has been on anyone else. Bottom line, they violate the current policy, and need to be fixed.  No such thing as a grandfather clause..  At best there should be a grace period to go through and fix the things you created that are now in violation of a policy. ShoeMaker (Contributions &bull; Message) 18:31, April 25, 2012 (EDT)



Read the policy more carefully, they do not violate them. Specifically these 2 lines under file naming section:
 * Also acceptable for focus orbs is to crop the item name, and only show the orb - this allows it to be used for multiple item pages.
 * Current naming for such focus orb images is Type Generic Description.png. EG: Necklace Generic Gold.png or Trinket Generic Bauble.png.

And for the record I have never personally attacked you.

Additionally, you're clearing to just trying to tell me to do random work to be purposely abrasive in your war against me. I've been working hard on the wiki for years, It's not your right to come here and tell me to do something. Bladedge did a great job creating the vast majority of the orbs in use on the site, and they do not violate the policy.

And if you had ANY issues with the policies, you had 2 weeks to change them at will, and now over 3 weeks to post your disapproval on the policy discussion pages, you read the policies, you helped enforced them on occasion even, and you certainly did not make any claims of disapproval in that time. Coming here weeks after the fact to complain is not the proper way to resolve your lack of attention to the matter. It's just shows your continued search of pointless ways to attack me.

What is this now, the 3rd time you've falsely accused me of something now in a day? Getting a bit much. Shade (Contributions • Message) 19:05, April 25, 2012 (EDT)


 * Two weeks is an inadequate amount of time for agreeing on any site changing policy.. Your policies are also currently under suspension under a request for review.. Please see the appropriate policy talk pages. ShoeMaker (Contributions &bull; Message) 19:16, April 25, 2012 (EDT)

My post
I'm sorry you took it as a personal attack, and I can see how it could be seen as such... however, it truly wasn't MEANT as such, and I apologize for how it was presented. For the record, I don't care if you remove it or not, so feel free to add the other stuff back and leave it out rather than blanking the page to archive if, if you wish.

However, the points I made in it are valid, IMHO.

Also, WTF d'you mean, "second personal attack?" LrdSlvrhnd (Contributions • Message) 17:25, April 25, 2012 (EDT)



Apology accepted. Just keep in mind I already got your message a week ago, yes I will try to improve my spelling, and you should really stop hounding me (or anyone) over it, and it's simply not a fair thing to do anyone. Also keep in mind far as Turbines concerned, such as actions are grounds for permanent bans from the game, forums, myddo, etc.. Read line #1 of the community guidelines, you definetely broke them, just be thankful they dont exist on the ddowiki.

Personal attack #1: April 19th, 2012: in non-talk pages and continue to make this EXTREMELY simple mistake!) (top) [rollback]
 * m Vengeful Protector ‎ ("It's" = "it is", ALWAYS. You can't claim to be 'professional'

You're calling me unprofessional over a VERY common very simple typo is really not fair. It's perhaps one of the most common typos made in the human language, tons of people make it all the time. It's one that my spellchecker doesnt catch. And really, It's NOT a big deal. You acting like it is, just isn't conducive to a friendly wiki, as the mistake will be made agian, by me, and by thousands of other editors. We aren't all English masters, we make mistakes, insulting us over it isn't right.

And no, I'm going to leave it removed, as is my right. Anyone who wishes to dig through my user talks history can view it. If I was you tho, I wouldn't want anyone to see it.

anyways: Forgive and forget has always been my policy. No hard feelings as long as you don't continue this path. Shade (Contributions • Message) 17:36, April 25, 2012 (EDT)

Taking a break for now, will move the other 19 later.
When you move them, please move them to the proper name.. "Monster Information/Example" should be properly moved to "Monster information/example". The sup-page name is not a proper name, and using sentence case - as we do - it should be lowercase. Thank you. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 18:16, April 25, 2012 (EDT)

Nope. Post slash titles are not defined in the naming policy. They are different enough that they need to be considered seperately.. Anyways this is not the proper place to discuss this, reply here: Talk:Item enchantments. Shade (Contributions • Message) 18:20, April 25, 2012 (EDT)


 * Done. ShoeMaker (Contributions &bull; Message) 18:25, April 25, 2012 (EDT)

Warning 2

 * Enough. Settledown and stop posting anything towards each other. Shade dont post anything on Tech13 page. Tech13 dont post anything Shade page. Dont post anything towards each other in  any summarys or any talk pages unless it relates to the subject Title, Or I make your both hate me when your get a cooling off from the wiki for a day or three. Your both been warned. Bladedge (Contributions &bull; Message)


 * This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice for 24 hrs with a 24 hr increment thereafter. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. If their any more edit wars, posting against one another in the Summary section, etc both Shade and Technical 13 will be block together. Talk it out on a general talk page. Bladedge (Contributions &bull; Message) 15:53, April 26, 2012 (EDT)


 * Sigh... Points 1 and 2 are wrong, as users who are not at the very least Super, CANNOT DELETE/MOVE PAGES, hence they would never see that. 3rd Point I'm not going to get into. 4th Point. KOBOLD WORKER IS A JOKE, HE HAS NEVER used that account to post something meaningful. If you think "Kobold no like you" is a meaningful post, then you have no sense of humor. Only reason I'm defending the kobold, is because it was made in response to ME. 5th point: There is currently one edit that remains hidden, and that was the promotion of the Kobold to skipcaptcha. The promoting of his bot, is something he does every 2-3 days anyway.Point 6: We've discussed those bans, as being over a year old and never making edits or being spam related names. Points 7,8, and 9: Those are your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Lastly, Point 10: Have you ever seen what happens when somebody in power gets fired? I've been on forums/guilds, where when he was called into question, the admin/mod deleted over half the forum, and perma banned 80% of the users. It took 2 weeks for things to be restored. In the Ghallanda guild Citadel, when I called into question the current leader (The 12 leaders rotated every month), leader kicked everybody out and disbanded the guild. Granted this was before airships, so not much was lost. In EVE, a guy stole AN ENTIRE FREAKING STARBASE FULL OF SHIPS/MATERIALS when his status was called into question within the 3rd largest corporation (That was the referred to as a Bernie Madoff...)

Yawgmoth (Contributions • Message) 20:34, April 26, 2012 (EDT)


 * For the record, I have not blocked or banned anyone, that would be your friend who also attempted to block me.   As a matter of fact, if you read my post on his page, I asked him what he thinks gives him the right to block EITHER of us.  I've also over the last few days, asked  and  on the forums for you to have turbine forum moderator status for promotion and further advancement of the wiki.  I've hidden no bans.  I've impersonated no-one,  as more than one person has told you is a joke/mascot account that I have no issue setting a password that I can email to all of the administrators to promote the site.  No user is spammed with anything... The policies are under review and revamping to be perfectly clear, and ALL administrators have the rights to make edits and changes.  So, the "| Move (policy review expiring Tuesday, July 24, 2012) |" is a reminder to check the policy before moving anything (and therefore a potential violation of the naming policy).  I believe that any administrator placed on the list for demotion should have their rights suspended, and other than  question of the original validity of the procedure, no one has objected or made any attempt to reinstate your privileges, which in of itself says something in my opinion. ShoeMaker (Contributions &bull; Message) 20:07, April 26, 2012 (EDT)