Your bonder build has been moved to User:Shadowcrest/Build:Mo/any Aspenwood Bonder, following PvXwiki policy PW:WELL. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 06:05, 24 November 2007 (CET)


Shadowcrest. --Many srs beans Srs Beans R Srs 15:56, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

User:Shadowcrest Brandnew. 16:00, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Hello. Even though I have no idea who you two are, though I suspected Srs of being nova. Hi. Thanks for the hai's. --Shadowcrest 23:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I am deeply disappointed. And offended, slightly. --Many srs beans Srs Beans R Srs 05:40, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Your signature

Violates PvX:SIGN. See the reference table for details. Please change it accordingly. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 16:59, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I would like to point out that as my signature is not more than 19px tall (<17), it does not disrupt line spacing and should thus be allowed. If I actually contributed more to PvX, I would actually defend my position better, but right now I'm only here to ask DE a question and cba to create walloftext arguments. --Shadowcrest 22:57, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
I would also like to point out that even without the slanted font that makes it appear smaller, size="3" still does not exceed 19 pixels. As such, it should not violate PvX:SIGN. Please explain further. --Shadowcrest 23:07, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
^srs bsns guildwiki admin. Misfate 23:18, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
Indeed. --Shadowcrest 23:19, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
In fact, your own signature violates PvX:SIGN. It states that you should not include links to anything other than your userpage or talkpage, and yours includes a link to PvX:ADMIN. --Shadowcrest 00:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
<big>, font size="3" and font-size: 120% are the same as the reference table shows. Therefore, font size="3" is equal to <big> which is not allowed. If you think that the policy or its reasoning is incorrect, you can propose changes on the policy's talk page. As for internal links, "Beyond that, internal links should be avoided." It is discouraged but not prohibited. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 06:00, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Just like my proposal? Still, even without the Vivaldi font, Shadow's sig is only 19px high. And anything above 20px breaks the text lining. --Many srs beans Srs Beans R Srs 06:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Just like that. Breaks the text lining or not, it is not allowed, as I said proposals can be made on the policy's talk. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 06:12, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I was pointing out my comment because nothing has happened with it, except that I wrote it.
Imho, they should be allowed if the sig text doesn't surpass 19px height (since that's how high the images may go). Or, you could make the restriction 20px, which also doesn't break text lining, both for text and images. --Many srs beans Srs Beans R Srs 06:23, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
"Should" is not an acceptable argument. Even if it was decided your sig is allowed, it would be on a mere technicality. "You may include a link to your user page and/or your user talk page for people who want to discuss something with you person-to-person." Inclusive of a policy page? I think not. "If you find a particular PvXwiki page useful, put it in your browser bookmarks, favorites list, or on your userpage — not in your signature." How much more clear can it be? If you're going to play hardball, so am I. Using font tags to enlarge text is not explicitly disallowed- it isn't even mentioned. As such, I refuse to change my non space-breaking (which was the entire point of that line, which you seem to have missed) sig until PvX:SIGN is amended, particularly when it is flaunted by the sysops telling me I violate it. Srs bsns guildwiki admin indeed. --Shadowcrest 12:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It is. Furthermore, it's not me, who finds PvX:ADMIN useful but other users "who want to discuss something" with me, or an other administrator. But feel free to try to make Armond, Edru, Frv, Hhhippo, Scottie and Wizardboy777 change their signatures. And using font tags to enlarge text is explicitly disallowed. "Markup such as <big>" includes both <font size=""> and style="font-size:". And the point is that those markups are disallowed, not that they are actually space-breaking or not. I would recommend you to cooperate because the "I refuse to change my signature" approach is definitely not helping. As I said, you can propose changes on the policy's talkpage. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 13:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
"Markup such as <big> tags (which produces big) is not allowed, as it disrupts the normal spacing between rows of text." It does not say anything at all about something similar, and actually is false. Big tags don't break page lining. It's only 18px high, images go up to 19px, and the lining only breaks at 21px and higher. Get your facts straight tbh. --Many srs beans Srs Beans R Srs 13:07, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
<font size=""> is a markup too. And it does produces big. And I will repeat it again: if you want to make proposals to change the policy, you can do so on the policy's talk. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 13:11, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
As I pointed out, it doesn't fucking help to post there. Not a soul reads it. You're an admin, and people expect you to know coding. Change the lies (font tags), and don't bend the rules because other people do so (link to PvX:Admin). --Many srs beans Srs Beans R Srs 13:41, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes it does help. That's the first step to change something, all you need to do is to wait for until a consensus is reached. If you think that your proposal is being ignored, you can ask users / admins to review and respond to your proposal. There is a difference between should and must. Internal links other than userpage/talk are discouraged but not forbidden. I don't get what do you mean by "Change the lies", explain please. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 13:53, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

(Reset indent) Lies about the big tags breaking the text lining. Big tags are just fine. Images can be one pix bigger, but don't break the lining? Yeah right >.> --Many srs beans Srs Beans R Srs 14:03, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it is breaking the text lining. Will post a picture soon to prove. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 14:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I used my sig with the overline so the space between the rows can be easily measured. I hope that this evidence is satisfying enough.
Dont TextFlow
~ ĐONT*SYSOP 14:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Unfortunately not. I would be if you could provide me with such an image that compares those 3 sigs in addition to one comparing a maximum dimension image sig (50x19) with 2 "regular" signatures if it contains the evidence is that I violate PvX:SIGN.
Additionally, I am in agreement with Srs Beans that having a link to PvX:ADMIN in your signature does absolutely nothing to encourage discussion. If someone were to bring up a point in PvX:ADMIN with you, I am sure they would not need your signature to find the page.
I also like to disagree with the fact that you (and apparently the other admins) are abusing the wording of PvX:SIGN to include internal links in your signature, while calling out others for things that could just as easily be abused by wording. "Markup such as <big>" does NOT include <font size=""> , regardless of how you try to put it. What if I used size=2? It would be smaller than regular text. Equal to <big>? I think not.
And for the record, if my signature actually violated PvX:SIGN and you pointed that out to me, I would have no problem in the world changing it. What I have a problem with is listed in the above paragraph. --Shadowcrest 15:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I meant <font size="3">. There is a difference between should and must. Internal links other than userpage/talkpage should not but can be used, which is not equal to "abusing the wording". The policy is meant to be worded that way, if internal links would be clearly forbidden, the wording would reflect so (i.e. mustn't, not allowed etc). And your signature violated and still violates PvX:SIGN. Neither <font size="3"> nor <big> is allowed. And here is the proof. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 16:49, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Your sig is just as large as mine. You, myself,Srs beans for his image which is 19px tall, and Normal spacing. If my signatures violates PvX:SIGN, so does yours, possibly on two counts. And it might read that way because it was C+P'd from GuildWiki, which has decided that internal links aren't allowed. Nobody even tried to twist it the way you have. And your argument for it is illogical. If I had a page that had lots of pics of half-clad women (which I've seen quite a few of here recently), I could leave a note in my sig "Click here to sign my guestbook!" and little kids who clicked there as a parent walked by could be grounded, banned from the computer, etc., because you're refusing to acknowledge the spirit of PvX:SIGN. In addition, there is the line "Do not include links to skills, builds, campaigns, characters, weapons, personal fun pages, etc in your signature. " If you can't link to a mainspace page why should you be able to link to a policy page? 2+2=5? I await your response. --Shadowcrest 18:11, 21 August 2008 (EDT)




--71.229 18:18, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
You might have noticed that not everyone has your font and that it fails according to the "rules" when it's replaced by your generic standard font (see Dont's pic for that tbh) as it's smaller than standard fonts that everyone does have. Now, stop whining ffs. Is it rlly so hard just to do as your told for once? And +1 on what 71 said. şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 18:20, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Saz, that was pointed at everyone. --71.229 18:23, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Dont isn't a dick tbh for saying here what he, other admins and even other users say to all the people that use those tags. şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 18:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of providing a quality build resource for GW players trumps both." Quoted from PvXwiki:Ignore All Rules. The spirit of it is to not have disruptive links to other things in your sig - You are taking it literally. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   18:42, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

(EC)Unfortunately, "vivaldi" is not a stadard font, so what you see matters not. Standard fonts are (viewable on both Windows and Mac): Arial, Arial Black, Comic Sans MS, Courier New, Georgia, Impact, Times New Roman, Trebuchet MS and Verdana. You can screenshot your signature and use it as an image. Otherwise, please remove size="3". I already said my point of view about internal links, feel free to contact a bureaucrat if you wish to have my signature supervised. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 18:46, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

(EC)Which, when applied to the effect of "PvX:SIGN is to prevent excessively disruptive signatures," provides that since my sig is not exceedingly disruptive (soft color, under pixel limit, easily reads "Shadowcrest", etc. Compare to other sigs on this site and you'll have a hard time arguing my point) and should thus be allowed. There are sig violations all over the place here, and I don't get why I'm being singled out. --Shadowcrest 18:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
You are not. [1], [2], [3]. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 19:00, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Maybe so, but there's still internal links (which I will ask DE about shortly) and there's also the fact that Frvwfr2's sig has a transcluded page, which is expressly forbidden. There had better be some srs sig-policing going on. --Shadowcrest 19:07, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Many people use signature templates. However I would recommend you to change your signature before pointing at others. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 19:10, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Then many people are violating PvXwiki. Additionally- as I already pointed out- your sig breaks spacing just as much as mine does. You are just as (if not more) guilty as I. Oh, and I can't use my signature as an image, because it's too long. Though if I did make it an image, it would still have the same line height, which defeats the purpose of me changing it at all, hmm? --Shadowcrest 19:18, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I hope you are aware of the fact that the font you are using cannot be seen by others (unless the font is installed on one's computer, which is very unlikely and cannot be expected). Additionally - as I already proved with screenshots - your signature breaks spacing, while mine does not. If you make it an image, the font used could be seen, it wouldn't break spacing and as long as it's not taller than 19px it would be fine since we generally do not enforce the 50px width. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 19:27, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's been made clear to me that there is very little in the way of sign-enforcement. I point out an explicitly defined violation of a user's signature, and in response I recieve the argument that since many people do it it's ok. I proved- with screenshots- that your signature has the same line spacing as mine. Yours proves nothing about your signature (nor technically mine), since it isn't compared to just text and is only compared to itself and my own signature. The only valid point so far is that not everyone can see my font, which is a valid concern but not mandated at all by PvX:SIGN. I have- for now- changed my font size. --Shadowcrest 19:34, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I did not imply that "it's ok". Actually, I disagree with template signatures, however they were accepted upon community consensus. I have to prove nothing about my signature since it is not violating PvX:SIGN. If something is not specified by a policy, the next is common sense; you cannot expect every user to download the font you use. Proving your points with such fonts will get you nowhere either. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 20:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
If all the things I see not being enforced about PvX:SIGN have been updated by community concensus I would like to request an admin update the page, since it clearly doesn't reflect what was apparently changed by concensus. And now I have uploaded a pic with size=3 tags, and while mine is 1 pixel taller on the top, yours is 2 pixels taller on the bottom. Mine, Yours. --Shadowcrest 20:10, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I will probably do so tomorrow. Differences between our outcomes can depend on various things, including operating system, internet browser, its version number, type of linebreaks etc. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 20:28, 21 August 2008 (EDT)


are you like this at work too? şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 19:12, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Why how silly! I thought it would have been very clear that I'm not employed. However, comparing this to a real-world job is inherently skewed, because jobs are actually necessary to support oneself and getting fired is not a good thing. However, this website is strictly volunteer work, and as such, there's really nothing to be done about me, other than ban me unjustly. In which case I would immediately ask Auron or DE to remove. Since you have no premises with which to ban me, I am entitled to post as long as I may wish. However, if I were a new user and I was treated like this, I would most certainly not be returning to contribute. Do you treat potential employees like this too? --Shadowcrest 19:22, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I still wouldn't like to be your colleague tbh. You also seem to be confusing me with an admin. I'm just here to tell you I think you're a dick :3 Was it really worth the trouble to keep your sig, anyway? I also haven't seen you contribute nor do anything remotely supporting for the community other than whine about your signature. I would also generally tell potential employees that act this way to get the fuck out. şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 19:37, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I knew you weren't an admin. Not only are you not listed on PvX:ADMIN which I checked literally yesterday (I was using PvX policy elsewhere and I checked it for inspiration), you were also incivil posting on my talk page, which Dont and Frvwfr2 were kind enough not to become regardless of whether or not they think I'm a dick (which they probably do, but that isn't important atm). Which also shows that they probably make good overall sysops, and so I do not (and will not) hold anything they've said here against them. They're just trying to enforce PvX:SIGN (however irregularly isn't important for this convo) You, however, have only told me to quit whining, stfu and blindly do what the admins say regardless of whether or not I agree, to gtfo, and make comments about me IRL. Additionally, I plan on contributing here regularly, and since both GWW and GWiki (and other non-GW related wikis) use the same signature policy where my identical signature has been allowed, I was planning to use my typical signature here as well. Is that really so unreasonable? --Shadowcrest 19:57, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Rude Saz is rude. MisfatemudkipMisfate /wave 20:12, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
welcome to the internet. şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
welcoming saz is welcoming --Tab MooTab Piplup 18:36, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Being on the internet isn't an excuse to be rude. --Shadowcrest sig image 19:02, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Actually being rude is a completely different level tbh. This is a very mild form of it. Anyway, I'm sorry QQ. Will you forgive me? Want a hug and possibly be friends? şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 19:06, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I have no personal qualms with you. If your "apology" weren't dripping with sarcasm, then I would accept. Should you offer a sincere one, then I will accept that too. --Shadowcrest sig image 19:20, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Sarcasm isn't always that obvious on the internet tbh. Maybe we shld find a way to show the tone of your voice in our text o: şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 19:22, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I have, to the best of my ability, maintained a civil tone. Perhaps cold and possibly harsh, but still within the bounds of good taste. I have not yet told anyone to gtfo or personally attacked anyone. If your apology was indeed sincere and I misinterpreted it, I apologize and accept it. If it was not sincere... then I have nothing left to say to you. --Shadowcrest sig image 19:46, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I never said you should gtfo. That was the whole employee scenario. And you're not my employee. Anyway, relax. I think you're taking me a little too serious. Let's just forget about the past and let's have some fun, m'kay? No point in having grudges. şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 19:56, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Saz is mcserious. Srs bsns guildwiki admin is mcserious too. MisfatemudkipMisfate /wave 19:57, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Hey Shadowcrest, welcome to PvX! Enjoy your stay.

You can find more information about using the wiki here.
Also, please try to participate in /wave and wtf? chains which can be located in RC.
And remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ ;)

(Reset indent) Can you blame me? :/
As for my seriousness, I am Shadowcrest McSerious and- as evidenced by my userbox- I mean srs bsns, after all :o
I won't hold a grudge against you and it would be great if you wouldn't hold one against me either. I appreciate the offer (and the thought) and I accept. :) --Shadowcrest sig image 20:13, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Guess not, no. But srsly, life is more fun if you just laugh with everything. And fyi, I'm much harsher against my rl friends, tbh. Anyway, don't take my crap too seriously. I have a big mouth and blurt out stuff all the time. I never had a grunge against you either, for that matter. şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 20:28, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Welcome to PvXwiki!

Welcome Pic
Welcome to the wiki Shadowcrest! (This user is a srs bsns user.)
Click 'show' to see areas you might like to familiarize yourself with:
Also, to save yourself from being crucified, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Enjoy! Misfate 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I appreciate the sentiment, but the template says I would be crucified if I forgot to sign. However, quite the opposite occured :D --Shadowcrest 20:27, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
/wave MisfatemudkipMisfate /wave 20:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
^mudkip, imo. --Shadowcrest 20:37, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
That's so '06. Wooper is where it's at these days. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 20:20, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Mudkip could kick Wooper's sorry ass anyday, tbh :o
by the way, I hope you mean "so '08" :/ --Shadowcrest sig image 20:40, 22 August 2008 (EDT)



I'm pretty epic, tbh. Cedave bad ツ terribad mcfail (contributionsbuildpage) 22:45, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Since it didn't involve flaming me (I suspected it would), I'll give you maturely. But not professionally.
  1. You retained your image. Since you even said that you thought that just the image alone would give it away, the new test is invalid.
  2. You retained your character from whatever language that looks like a smiley face. To me, that would invalidate the test faster than the image. I've never seen that character before; of course my brain would link it to you.
  3. The rest of your signature (T/C, font color) is the same. See above.
  4. Only people you know were asked. Confirmation bias disqualifies your test from the start.
Unrelated points: how did you make that image? And what about my sig do you find unreadable? nobody has said that it's hard to read, either here or on guildwiki. My sig only uses English characters in a slanted font; except for the 'S', it should look rather like italics in light blue. --Shadowcrest sig image 23:08, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Your sig is rather unreadable, really. It's just that most people can be arsed to hoover their mouse over your name or just can;t be arsed at all. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 23:12, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
ctrl+alt+prt scr and Paint. I'm pro. As for your sig, I can't read a lot of sigs because I've got a low-end LCD monitor plugged into an HD 9800 GTX card. It makes some things weird. Well, only because the monitor sucks. Your curvaceous letters and light blue font make it hard to read. Of course, Rapta's is nearly impossible to read on that same note. Also, my point was that sigs are meant to give recognition. If someone's new, it doesn't matter what their name is, you won't recognize them. If you know them, you'll recognize them most likely, regardless. Also, I wasn't trying to actually use that evidence to prove a point, just the idea, which I think you got. Everyone knows Shadowsin's sig. And everyone knows who tab is. Same with Sazzy. And Manstick. And Wubliest. Sorry if it came off as a sort of asshole thing. Just trying to lighten the situation up. ^_~ Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 23:14, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Also, "Proving points maturely and professionally" is meant to be sarcastic. If you knew my history of confrontation, you'd understand. I'm probably the first person to tell an admin to "fuck off" and not get perma-banned and/or leave the wiki of my own will. Or vandalize anything for that matter. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 23:17, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Ok. The point I was trying to make about new people wasn't that people won't recognize new people's signatures (they wouldn't even in plain text), it's that new people won't have a clue tab=ibreaktoilets etc. and asking new guys to remember them only screams elitism. :/
(EC)That only helps prove my point that asking new people to know these things isn't fair. :/--Shadowcrest sig image 23:28, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
When I was new here I didn't really have much problems with it. Nor did I really care about it either. I even broke that rule myself for that matter. And if you really want to be active, you'll learn who's who fast enough. And pvx is pretty much one big pile of elitism tbh ^^ Also, happy with my new sig? it doesn't look as good but at least I'm not sally anymore. şąʐʐƴƿooɧPinkNautical 05:43, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

gw:User:Defiant Elements

I quote: "Don't argue with idiots". If I were you, I wouldn't bother (anymore). --Many srs beans Srs Beans R Srs 05:49, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.