User talk:Nightshadow

Can't afford it >.< --IxI Raiden IxI 16:39, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

I'd like all these misunderstandings to be communicated to me before someone leaves accusatory messages on my page. No one can know what another person means as far as text is concerned so if you think I am coming across a certain way, please ask me to clarify and verify that that was indeed what I meant. Thank you. &mdash; Nightshadow   13:39, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

About my Savannah Searing Nuker build... you stated that the DoT spells took too long to cast. with savannah heat first, it will definitely finish. then teinai's and searing will have at leat 4 seconds done from them. I believe this is the HIGHEST damage an elementalist can achieve without being in a group of 3 SF eles. Many other Savannah Heat builds used Gale as their snare, which was one foe for 2 seconds. deep freeze, on the other hand, is foes in the area for 10 seconds. this helps me put out much more damage than any other single inefficient SF ele. -- Xeones  07:28, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Slow down with the attitude...
Please try and be more considerate with your comments towards others. Do not cite policy to stir trouble with other users like you did in the talk page of the Discord build. Admitting that you were trying to get a build moved from one categorization to another just to rattle the author or get back at him/her or whatever is not good for your history on the wiki. Always separate process from personal issues, please. Thanks. --Karlos 07:11, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Okay. I am not concerned about my history on the wiki or adminship or anything so that doesn't bother me. I never admitted to any such thing about the Discord build, and I did NOT do that to "rattle" the author. I've noticed that Admin on this site tend to not ask the other party what they meant, such as in this case. If you want to know why I did something, do me a favor and ask next time instead of putting an accusatory message on this site here. I only went to being a "smartass" when she did. If you cannot see that, I'm sorry. No attitude was meant and I am generally nice to people until they are no longer nice to me. I'll watch it next time. Just please watch how you say things to me as well, as this is online and you don't know how I meant things unless you ask. I have rights as well. &mdash; Nightshadow   13:32, 23 March 2007 (CDT)


 * You said, and I quote (see here):
 * Also, it's now 6-5. Why is this still tested and vetted? --- Nightshadow 01:05, 17 March 2007 (CDT) 
 * I know that guys... I was making a stab at the build's creator who basically wanted this build vetted so bad she kept asking about it... I guess no one gets my humour. --- Nightshadow 01:15, 17 March 2007 (CDT) 
 * So, by your own admission, you were asking about the vote count and playing the wiki policy card to "make a stab at the build's creator." There is nothing to interpret here. These are your words.
 * This kind of behavior on the wiki is unacceptable. If you favor/unfavor/put tags/remove tags from articles to "make a stab" at another user, you risk getting banned for X number of days.
 * I have already admonished the author, Vanessa, for her "beyond foolish" remark, she PMed me in-game (which is what got me involved in this to begin with, I generally don't care much about the builds section). I am putting that on record here. However, being "not nice" (which is discouraged here) is totally different from twisting wiki policies to get back at a user. This is what I am warning you against. Am I perfectly clear? --Karlos 09:33, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

I was mistaken about what the unvetting/vetting policy was at the time until after I said that comment. I did not change anything on her build. I would just like to make that known. I looked up vetting/unvetting after I made that comment because I realized I was wrong. I don't have a quarrel with that person either. Can this just be dropped, please? &mdash; Nightshadow   11:23, 27 March 2007 (CDT)