User talk:216.176.158.46

Bugs

Could you be so kind to read the "bug" page please? Especially the difference between an anomaly and a real bug. It can be found here: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Bug

Your recent bug-spree is generating more work for everyone else than it's actually helping imo.

By the way, in case you didn't know, if you leave a comment on a talk page, it's customary to sign it, using 4 tildes at the end of your post. Steve1 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

try not to be a tit, you'll find its a bannable offense. -Chieftain Alex 00:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't help but notice

Hello unregistered user! I can't help but notice that your recent wiki activity has been met with much conflict (after a few dozen edits, you have only a single top edit). Your edits all appear to be in good spirits and where certain edits add helpful information to the wiki, not all of these edits are constructive to the wiki. I'd like to invite you to look over some of your edits with me:

• This edit to Stormcloud Incubus is a constructive edit. You've rewritten a paragraph into a proper, encyclopaedic style of writing (something that is encouraged).
• This edit to Arachnia is a semi-constructive edit. It brings previously missing information to the wiki, but it could have been incorporated more effectively. Fortunately another user was more than willing to help, as seen in the next edit.
  • Slightly unfortunately, however, are the edits closer to the present, where you decide to add templates to the article that are not applicable to the page, although you also rectify yourself.
• This edit to Grawl Vambrace is a constructive edit. Missing flavour text is something that can always be improved. By initiating this type of editing, the article was quickly shaped into a much higher-quality version.
• This edit to Prince Mehtu the Wise is highly non-constructive (and similar edits in the long run can even be destructive). Guild Wars Wiki has an official stance on speculative information and assumptions of similar nature: they are unwelcome and will be removed upon sight. As a wiki, we can only document what is known and testable proof. Considering your edit adds pure speculation and unconfirmed information to the article, it was reverted soon thereafter.
• As per the previous section on this article (Bugs, at the top of your talk page), I would also like to press upon you to read into the definitions of and differences between bugs and anomalies.

While I can understand the agitation others have expressed in response to your edits, I see you neither as a disruptive nor unwelcome editor. I do hope to see the quality of your edits improving in the nearby future, though.

Best of luck and happy wiki-ing,

Infinite - talk 09:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Stub templates

Don't add these to pages, it is not helping at all... somehow you seem to not understand when something IS and IS NOT a stub. -Chieftain Alex 06:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

In their defence, when Hard Mode attributes are not known it's most definitely a stub (albeit a minor stub). - Infinite - talk 20:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to add a stub template to a page, please explain why you consider the page or section a stub in either the edit summary or by appending a note to the stub template (e.g. {{stub|Explanation here}}). --Silver Edge 08:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)