User talk:StupidLemonEater

Regarding disables/effects/statuses
You might cast your eye over this regarding which items and abilities can cause certain kinds of disables. Please feel free to improve their respective pages, because they're kind of a kludgy mess right now. :-) --Kroocsiogsi 20:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Status Effect Page Suggestion
I like your ideas for the status effects. If you're looking for suggestions, maybe take a look at my Aghanim's Scepter page. Might look good with those templates. Nickoladze 05:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I do like the way that Scepter page looks. The only real problem I see with it is that items can't easily be added. I may try to adopt your style when I'm totally done with changing the stun page.

Also, does anyone know of a better way to do the template than a two-column table? It looks fine, but whenever you add an odd number of cells you end up needing to shift all the row breaks down by one. It's not that difficult, but it's tedious and will become a problem with new content being added every week. -Stupid Lemon Eater 08:48, 20 January 2012

Regarding revert edit of Roshan
Hello,

Regarding edit of Roshan ( http://www.dota2wiki.com/index.php?title=Roshan&action=historysubmit&diff=224745&oldid=224744 ), if the Cheese can actually be sold, please also correct the Cheese article where it says: "Cheese cannot be sold (previously, it had a sell price of 500 gold)."

I was only passing by both articles and noticed a consistency issue; the word "previously" made me think the Roshan article was outdated.

--91.121.202.183 03:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What should constitute the article
You speak first, I have no more time right now.

Sorry if I seem a bit coarse, I am always constantly pressed for time so brevity is necessary even if impunctual, but I thought you wouldn't mind. Anyway, if you have anything to say...

Don't worry about a few bad edits; they'll get burrowed under a tide of better edits relatively quickly, trust me.--Immanot 07:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I can only presume this is about you repeatedly reverting my edits to the Pause page. If you would just take a moment to look at the edits I made, I think you and I might come to a better understanding.


 * First, I removed the phrase "without contest" because it is meaningless jargon and will only serve to confuse readers.


 * Second, I removed the note about Meat Hook because it's inaccurate.


 * Third, I removed the note about invulnerability because it's implied that if a unit is invulnerable it cannot be affected by any disables.


 * Fourth, I removed the note about Chronosphere affecting towers because it's irrelevant. That information is already conveyed in Faceless Void's article, and it is the only Pause that behaves this way.


 * Fifth, I added a note about Chronosphere not affecting illusions of Faceless Void because I felt it was relevant to the page.


 * Sixth, I removed the note about gold and experience being a glitch because it isn't a glitch; even if it were, the fact that it is a glitch would be irrelevant.


 * And then I removed italics from all mention of Dota 2 or Warcraft 3 because precedent on the wiki has shown that both should be left unitalicised.


 * If you take issue with any of these changes, I would encourage you to address them individually instead of reverting any and all changes to the article. Remember, just because you made the last change to a page does not mean you have to watchdog all further changes to that page. When I made my edits, I meant no disrespect to you. However, by reverting my edits twice now, you have made this personal. I will be reverting the page again, because I believe these changes need to be made. If you disagree, feel free to "set an admin on me."


 * --Stupid Lemon Eater 17:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All of what you have stated is fundamentally untrue. Furthermore, further attempts to disrupt the wiki and continure harassing me will be reported. Your editing history has a clear and concise record of you being mercenary in your regards to your editing. Your talk here: Talk:Cyclone and your edits made here      (when he made the page in the first place, same with ) show that you have a habit of trying to falsely discredit and censor information in your attempts to keep face. (Don't try to blank that either.) An administator has been notified for your trangressions. You have been warned.


 * I will be once again reverting your changes. Any further attempt to continue edit warring as I warned you about in my edit summary will only extend the depth of your infamy.


 * Note that the manual of style advises that all names of larger published works including all games be italicised and that all edits I have made fall under the same veil as well. (If you are allowed to edit past this point, this is something to keep in mind.) I would not like for you to have to blocked for any of your actions, so I suggest you act from this point on in an intelligent and moderate manner. Your ***ery is unacceptable within wiki conventions and I do not need to tolerate them.


 * On the greater wiki, your actions by this point would have at least made you eligible for a block (a temporary ban to editing) but I don't know what the protocol is in this wiki even if not fatal. You'd do well to be cautious, all the same. --Immanot 03:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Next time, do some research in dealing with one who is more experienced than you. As you've seen, all my edits have been of a more advanced nature than yours and I don't see why you didn't know that edits as ill-intended as yours would have some repercussions? :|


 * You know, none of my purpose in editing this wiki has been to discredit you or besmirch your reputation, and don't ever pretend that has ever been an issue. It's merely that the pattern of your contributing history has been extremely self-serving and histrionic and that it was likely that it would have continued in that direction: to detriment of the wiki and disruption of the editing process. I think you might feel that you were not deserving of this, that this shouldn't have happened to you, but your behavior very well may have merited it. Collaboration and seeing that the article fits the wants of all involved is the guiding principle of wiki-editing, and the fact that you have refused to allow for this is enough to cast you as one who is uncooperative and disruptive (and truly, you are) and fit to be blocked as a disciplinary. Your targeting of me doesn't help.
 * Padding of pages with words meant to contribute to readability is no crime. Your writing style is not perfect or even eloquent -- guided by some greater understanding so that any content that you arbitrarily declare to obstruct some hidden formula by which articles are meant to be written is illegitimate. Under no circumstance should your style in editing articles give you the exclusive right to them. Especially when parts of it (and certain parts you hold in contention) is apart from the style of editing used by wikipedia (almost always ruled the supreme guidelines by which a wiki is set up, including on this one) and when you have not made the effort to learn it [well, you have now recently, I see].


 * Any admins, now note also Talk:Pause.


 * Note that just because I've made this complaint, even with your certain guilt, the admin doesn't necessarily have to block you. If you promise to be more compliant with guidelines and no longer disruptive no more greater harm will probably come to you than this particularly nasty comment on your talk page.
 * With that I say good day.--Immanot 04:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if you care, there still may be some contention over the Pause article, but I'm doing my best to preserve the content already in the page. (Which was written by me for the most part, as a disclaimer...)