User talk:Beefcorporation

concerning the OD intro
The fallacy was not the approbative tone at the ending; approbativity and perjorativity are not fallacies. Both, however; should not be included in a notionally unbiased dissertation. You also eliminated what I had said about OD being the only Intelligence hard carry, presumably because you believed it to be incorrect, but I think you'll find it isn't. He is a hard carry, in that he can only function as a carry. The most prominent fallacy to which I was referring was "His source of mana regeneration is his Essence Aura, which instantly regenerates a quarter of his mana pool whenever he casts a spell", which is not the case. He has a 40% chance at max level to restore 25% of his mana pool; this is not the same thing as "a quarter of his mana pool wheneverhe casts a spell". "His main source of offense is his Arcane Orb, which deals Pure damage based on his mana pool; what makes it deadly is that Arcane Orb can be auto-casted as his normal attack, enabling him to flesh out huge amounts of damage continuously" is very poorly constructed as both a sentence and an explanation; Arcane Orb garners damage from his REMAINING mana pool, to "flesh out" makes little sense in that context, and a semicolon makes no sense there. "To cast" is an irregular verb, the past-tense is "cast", not "casted", let alone "auto-casted". I could go on to this effect but I won't. What I originally wrote contained nothing in the way of particularly bad syntax, certainly no bad grammar (as distinct from what YOU wrote) and served its purpose more effectively than your edit. If you're so concerned with internal links you could have inserted them into the original text without re-writing it. You are still welcome to do this. You are not, however, entitled to supplant existing content without supersession of it.