User talk:Willpell

Somebody keeps deleting my assessments of the maps; they need to cut it out. A blank tactics section does nobody any good; even if my posts aren't 100% on the button, they should be left up so that readers will have something to work with, even if the "work" consists of figuring out for themselves why the info is wrong. It's an improvement on no information at all.
 * Alright dude. Let me lay this out for you.  I did not perform these edits.  However, as an Admin, I consider the accusation of an edit war a serious one worth the 30 minutes I just spent tracking down all of your edits on the map tactics sections and how they were changed.
 * My conclusion: Not one of your assessments was deleted. They were edited, and heavily, but the ideas you promoted were left there for all to read.  Usually in a more palatable form.  Let me lay out all of the edits and what they were:
 * Killer Canals - Grammar and Bias edit. Removal of a generalization.  Splitting one paragraph into its 3 component points.
 * Downtown Beatdown - Grammar edit. ONLY a Grammar edit.
 * Boulevard of Broken Dreams - Grammar and Bias edit. Removal of generalization.  Removal of a superfluous example.  Removal of a general statement with a specific monster referred to.
 * Ramming Speed - Grammar edit. Eliminating the use of the word "obviously" and making the text less biased.
 * Road to Ruin - Grammar and Bias edit. Eliminate use of term "Absurdly high".  Replacing "Brawled Down" with the more accurate "Destroyed".  Removal of a tangential reference to another map.  Removal of term :"ridiculous".  Removal of recommendation of a single AGN for the map.  AGN strengths on maps should be presented on AGN tactics pages under "Map Selection." (Yes, I am aware that that section does not exist yet).
 * Riverside Rampage - Simplification and Bias edit. Splitting one paragraph covering two concepts into two different points.  Removal of a recommendation for a SPECIFIC MONSTER in the MAP tactics.  Perhaps you could outline how awesome Tharsis-5 is on Riverside Rampage on the Tharsis-5 page meant to cover that specific monster?


 * What needs to be cut out is your feeling of entitlement and ownership. A Wiki is a communal creation that achieves clarity and truth through continuous revision and adjustment by a group that realizes that their work will be altered by others.  I designed the new Main Page and the final part was modified against my wishes because the other people involved thought it would look better the way it is right now.


 * Please review The 5 Pillars of this Wiki. I believe all of the Pillars are applicable here, and that you would do well to review them.  I would also like to quote the following from pillar 3: "no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited." Gearbox 03:11, 6 August 2010 (CDT)

Hm, alright, not trying to start a "war". I will admit two errors on my part - I didn't realize there was a history of my past edits, I had thought they'd been wiped out forever, and that's always been a "hot button" to me, so that was the first part of why I posted in haste and with ire. And secondly, I had been absolutely certain that I also had posted assessments of Boardwalk Brawl and Crossroads Crunch as well, and those are completely blank right now. I suppose I must have been mistaken that I had edited those pages, but I still find that hard to believe even in the face of the evidence. So I will apologize for getting as hot under the collar as I did, but I do believe I had just cause according to the information that I had at the time. Willpell 05:33, 6 August 2010 (CDT)

An additional note: I think the Tharsis-5 mention should go back on Riverside Rampage; while a player who owns Tharsis needs to know Riverside is a good map for him, a player who owns Riverside also needs to know Tharsis is a good monster on it. A hypothetical player who likes to play the Riverside map for whatever reason a) might consider buying Tharsis when he finds out how good it is, and b) needs to know if he comes up against a player running Tharsis and wins map choice that he should reconsider his usual preference. Willpell 08:57, 6 August 2010 (CDT)


 * "TCW has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. " Advocating a single monster as the "best" for any map is not a neutral point of view. I for one think that SPD 7 is vital for success on Riverside Rampage, and Tharsis doesn't have that. To represent multiple points of view on who the best monster would be on a particular map, we would need to list all monsters and how they interact with the map.  While this is possible, it should be a separate page and not on the map page itself. Gearbox 13:36, 6 August 2010 (CDT)


 * The problem inherent in trying to outline what is good/bad on a given map is that anything could be argued to be good for a certain map. Saying Tharsis is good on Riverside Rampage doesn't mean that the map is less-good for any other monster.  The information, while useful to a Tharsis player or someone who owns the map, isn't really relevant to the map itself.  There could be a large number of monsters or armies that are good on that map, in the right situation, and to try and list all of them with supporting arguments would deviate from the concise and neutral perspective we want to maintain.
 * I have no problem with you recommending the map for Tharsis on his page, if you can provide evidence that it's significantly better for him than most (if not all) other maps. If a player owns the map and wants to find everywhere it's referenced, they can click the "What links here" link on the sidebar in the "Toolbox" section.  It's not necessarily something people will know by default, but it's better than trying to cross reference everything manually and maintain it all. &lt;Philip Rowland&gt; 13:56, 6 August 2010 (CDT)


 * "Anything could be argued to be good for a certain map"? Okay, that's pushing it.  How exactly is a non-armored pedestrian good on Downtown Beatdown?  If you're not going to present some sort of analysis of what tactics are best, there's no point in having a tactics section.  "Neutrality" does not consist of trying to avoid claiming that 5 is a bigger number than 4.  And a blank page is not "concise"; better meandering and subjective content than no content at all.  "The information, while useful to....someone with the map, isn't really relevant to the map itself" -- what?  Read that sentence again and tell me in what universe it makes any sense.  "Useful to someone with the map" is about as "relevant to the map" as it can possibly get, or do you think maps lounge around in their spare time having feelings of their own?  C'mon, dude, this is getting silly.  I don't have any "evidence", and I don't need any because it's patently obvious - Armored is good on Riverside, Flight is good on Riverside, anything that helps you smash a monster into a building is good on Riverside, Tharsis has all those things, that makes Tharsis good on Riverside.  You're perfectly free to add "Also, a Speed of 7 is necessary for ideal success on Riverside" or something; that's more useful information for those considering the map to ponder.  I agree that an in-depth analysis should probably be on a "Monsters for Map X" page, which the main map page should link to, but I wasn't planning on getting that in-depth; I just figured every map ought to have a few bullet point recommendations as to what monsters, types of monsters, factions, etc. tend to be good on it, as a starting point for those who come to this wiki looking for strategy.  Willpell 23:32, 6 August 2010 (CDT)


 * "I just figured every map ought to have a few bullet point recommendations as to what monsters, types of monsters, factions, etc. tend to be good on it, as a starting point for those who come to this wiki looking for strategy." And what the Admins keep telling you is that if you want to focus on specific strategies, then you need to post those strategies to the proper page.  It seems that you did not review the 5 pillars like I asked you to do, so here there are:

The fundamental principles by which TCW operates have been summarized in the form of these five "pillars":
 * You continue to advocate your personal opinions, counter to pillar one. You continue to advocate articles with a specific point of view, counter to pillar two.  You seem not to understand that pillar 3 is a brutal rule that is imposed equally on everyone.  Finally, your accusatory, aggressive tone in the face of the people who pay for this wiki explaining why they are modifying your text and how you can be a better editor flys directly into the face of pillar four and, on a personal note, is starting to get on my nerves.
 * If you don't want "your" contributions to be modified or edited, make them better. Pillar one states that we post facts.  Period.  The strategies and tactics are meant to be helpful bullet points for ANY player.  If you feel that more in depth analysis is worthwhile, then make the goddamn X (Tactics) page and stop whining about how there's no good place to post your contributions.  Learn some of the more basic formatting (such as how to increment your section of a discussion using colons).  Stop using semi-colons when you should be using periods.  Work with the community and we will help you while you help us.  Get defensive, angry and uppity with the admins at your own discretion. Gearbox 05:38, 7 August 2010 (CDT)

=Templates= I noticed that you added the Demolition page. It looked pretty good, but it wasn't in line with the Ability_Template. To use that template, the easiest thing to do is to go to the page (listed under Templates in the sidebar) and view the source or edit it in order to get to its code. Then copy that code and paste it into the new page. That way everything is uniform. If you want to see the differences between what the template should look like and what you originally did, you can check the history and see the changes I made to bring it in line. Thanks for your contributions, Willpell. As much as we may edit them and tweak them, they really are appreciated. &lt;Philip Rowland&gt; 13:56, 6 August 2010 (CDT)
 * I was editing the page at the same time, so Philip's page might not look exactly like what's up there right now. However, I also did nothing but apply the template. Gearbox 14:01, 6 August 2010 (CDT)

Yeah, I have no idea how to use your "templates", and assumed that one of you would fix it. I was just filling a void; red links don't do anyone any good. Bringing things "in line" is not a priority to me. Willpell 23:32, 6 August 2010 (CDT)
 * If you don't care about doing the work well, just add the stub tag and let someone else fix it. A red link means that someone hasn't gotten around to it.  A shoddy job means that someone doesn't really care about this resource and that there is no reason for the reader to care about it either.  Gearbox 05:38, 7 August 2010 (CDT)
 * Gearbox is on the money here. Doing something less than to the fullest level of quality here makes it far more probable that the page could be overlooked entirely and not brought in line with the other pages of its kind.  Follow his suggestion and use the Stub tag if you're not willing to do all of what is needed.  ---Galactus--- 09:29, 7 August 2010 (CDT)

You guys don't seem to be getting that I do things which are easy, and do not do things which aren't. If you don't want me to contribute to the wiki, fine. I leave it in your capable hands to do all the busywork which you feel is necessary, and I will simply reap the benefits of your labor. You could have had my help with your herculean task, but if you'd rather do the job yourself so that you can have it done up to your standards, I can respect that, and will happily refrain from trying to assist you. Willpell 10:10, 7 August 2010 (CDT)

=Triggers by Attack=

Went looking today for a list of Triggers by triggering attack - eg all blast triggers or all power attack triggers. Is there one? If not, should I create one at some point? Willpell 02:56, 12 August 2010 (CDT)
 * We don't have one put together at the moment. I recommend making 3 lists (using the list template off to the left): List:Brawl Triggers, List:Blast Triggers, List:Power Attack TriggersGearbox 03:19, 12 August 2010 (CDT)


 * I'm useless with your templates. How about if I generate the lists and you format them, or you put up the template pages and I fill in content? Willpell 07:03, 12 August 2010 (CDT)
 * Happy to work with you to generate this content. The templates are up.  Just fill in the bullet points with the data!  And we'll fix any format errors quickly.  Thanks for adding this excellent resource to the wiki! Gearbox 14:29, 15 August 2010 (CDT)


 * Excellent. I will at least begin work on it as soon as time permits.  Willpell 17:53, 15 August 2010 (CDT)
 * Update: Complete as of series 1 and 2.