User talk:GustaphMax
Contents
Welcome
Hi and welcome to the Yu-Gi-Oh! wiki! Thank you for your edit to the User:GustaphMax page.
If you need help, you can consult these pages:
If you would like to make a suggestion or ask for assistance, feel free start a topic at the forums or contact an administrator.
Annoying Orange
If you're him, then please respond with that account on that account's Talk Page, since I left a message there. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 21:53, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
Really?
Really a need to put "shame on you"?
Really? Only trying to help and I get that?
(Djstu25 (talk • contribs) 20:49, January 24, 2017 (UTC))
Sorry! :D I thought you were just a lazy guy, like many out there, and I only saw your edit summary after I wrote that. My sincere apologies.
GustaphMax (talk • contribs) 20:52, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
No problem. (Djstu25 (talk • contribs) 20:53, January 24, 2017 (UTC))
Sorry again and have a nice day!
GustaphMax (talk • contribs) 21:02, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
Card Tips clean-up
this card is so simple, straightforward and never-used..... no need for that shit-ton of tips. While the first two reasons may be true for "UFOroid Fighter", the third reason should not (never?) be a valid reason for essentially clearing a specific card's tip page. For example, look at "Wodan the Resident of the Forest". Its effect is pretty bad, so in general, it shouldn't be placed on other cards' tip pages. However, there can still be valid tips added for its own tip page... so long as they aren't gimmicky tips (and this is deliberately ignoring the possibility that the card itself is a gimmicky card). The only reason a person would be looking at that card's Card Tips page is if they're trying to use that card. (Or they have no choice, and must use that card... in a custom format, for example. Duel Links is a great example of this, making irrelevant cards relevant again.) --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 06:08, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
- hm, seems fair! I'll pay more attention to it, thanks! :D GustaphMax (talk • contribs) 16:01, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
I also dislike when you remove tons and tons of content from a tips page. Sure, some bullets can be removed, but some don't need to be, like the Quillbolt loop with "Cannon Soldier". Some people might want to focus on that. It seems you just prefer to be lazy and wipe out the text rather than clean it. If you don't want to clean it, then don't; but don't remove it all as well, when it can be cleaned up. Becasita Pendulum (talk • contribs) 16:00, June 5, 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I appreciate your feedback! Since UltimateKuriboh warned me before, I tried to pay more attention when cleaning up some card tips page. I must confess that maybe I overlooked the tip on hedgehog, but I carefully read all the others. However, what I try to do is to clean polluted pages, rather than nuke them recklessly; for example, on my last edit on Crystal Wing Synchro Dragon, I replaced a long-winded tip on how to Summon it on a Blue-Eyes deck, by removing a long text and keeping the core tip, that is: a Level 7 synchro summoned by Spirit Dragon + a Level 1 Tuner. Anyway, Thank you again for your feedback, I'll be more careful now. ^^
GustaphMax (talk • contribs) 01:29, June 6, 2017 (UTC)
- Edit wars are really annoying, because they clog up the page's history.
- If someone is trying to engage in an edit war, please stop editing the involved page. If you haven't managed to convince the other party in at least 2 reverts, then it's clear you're not going to reach a consensus through the limited edit summary messages... at which point, you resort to posting on their User Talk page (or the article's Talk Page) to continue the discussion. I also don't see why you seemed so insistent on reverting their edits, since Card Tips:Cannon Soldier is not a high-traffic page; it's not like there's going to be a catastrophe if the page goes "unfixed" for 1+ day. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 05:39, June 6, 2017 (UTC)
- Hi! All I did was remove the inconsistent tips, like the one revolving around Grandsoil and Dewloren, as if it was that easy to Special Summon them in the first place, and the ones that require intrincate and specific set-ups. But, anyway, I'll abide by your advice and stop editing them, even thinking that page is very polluted and even non-competitive players would have so much difficulty on achieving most of those combos.
GustaphMax (talk • contribs) 13:20, June 6, 2017 (UTC)
No, I won't let you keep doing this any further, no matter what you say to anyone. You don't even know what is "cleaning up" and how the tips pages work. All you do is removing everything that you think it's obvious or difficult to do, but the thing is that there are new players that are learning the game and don't find those thing obvious and they learn them here, they need detailed advices and the explanation of all the steps of every combo to understand how to do it. If part of a text is too redundant, then it can be cleaned up, but what you do is erasing every explanation and summarizing everything into 1 or 2 sentences. Not only that, you have a really flawed criteria about what is inconsistent or intricate, thinking that something requiring 2 or 3 specific cards is automatically impractical. If it was a full hand of 5 or 6 specific and unsearchable cards, then I would give you reason, but in todays game, when there are like 10 generic draw and search cards that increase consistency like hell (I expect I don't have to list all them), those things you thing are too inconsistent are actually quite consistent, even if they aren't used in competitive play because they aren't the best decks.
I requested you to search videos of people doing these combos consistently and repeatedly, but it seems you prefer acting like a kid and not appreciate my feedback, even when I gave you proves and reasons, because you only want to impose your flawed vision about the game. The "Grandsoil" combo is much easier to do than you think, because 5 EARTH monsters in the Graveyard with today's capacity of Graveyard control in most decks is not even a task, it has even been used consistently in some high tier decks. So before you try to impose your flawed criteria again, go and check to make sure if what you think about a play is right or not, which is what I do myself. And the fact that you find a tip unneeded doesn't mean that other people won't find it useful.--Feder373 (talk • contribs) 10:57, June 6, 2017 (UTC)
- tl dr GustaphMax (talk • contribs) 13:20, June 6, 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that you didn't bother to read my explanations confirms me that you are truly a lazy user, because if you had read them you would have understood why you are wrong. Anyways, I'll leave the Grandsoil and most of the other tips removed to stop fighting with you about this, given that you don't want to understand. I admit that some of your clean-ups are fine and justified, but others aren't.--Feder373 (talk • contribs) 15:38, June 6, 2017 (UTC)
- You're not improving anyone's impressions of you. If you're unwilling to study the validity of some of the more complicated card tips (which could be simplified, instead of being removed entirely), then you should say "partial clean-up" and skip over the difficult-to-judge card tips. Or just ignore cleaning up that Card Tips page altogether. You're doing more damage by removing card tips en masse, as opposed to leaving the Card Tips page unfixed in the first place. Having some gimmicky tips mixed in with some valid tips is better than mass clean-up that removes some of those valid tips. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 18:54, June 6, 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with that. You are all against me in this issue, so I must be humble and accept that I may be wrong. Not everyone thinks the same as me when it comes to removing unnecessary tips from a page, so from now on I'll be more careful when doing that. Really. But I request you to see the latest log from Card Tips:Ruthless Denial and see that my last edit was a proper cleanup rather than a blind mass removal and covered almost every tips before my edit and the page got less polluted that it was before. GustaphMax (talk • contribs) 19:00, June 6, 2017 (UTC)
- You're not improving anyone's impressions of you. If you're unwilling to study the validity of some of the more complicated card tips (which could be simplified, instead of being removed entirely), then you should say "partial clean-up" and skip over the difficult-to-judge card tips. Or just ignore cleaning up that Card Tips page altogether. You're doing more damage by removing card tips en masse, as opposed to leaving the Card Tips page unfixed in the first place. Having some gimmicky tips mixed in with some valid tips is better than mass clean-up that removes some of those valid tips. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 18:54, June 6, 2017 (UTC)
New Magical Scientist
Hey! GustaphMax!
I was thinking. Due to Catapult Turtle's erratum, Amazoness Archer would be a good substitute for it in a Magical Scientist OTK Deck. Good additions to this Deck would be 3 copies of Tri-and-Guess, since the Extra Deck would need to be chock full of Fusion Monsters. Can you think of any other cards that would be good additions to a modern Magical Scientist OTK Deck?RedEyesBurn69 (talk • contribs) 00:06, July 28, 2017 (UTC)
Hi, RedEyesBurn69! How's it goin?
I'm not into OTK Decks, specially those ones revolving around effect damage, so I think I cannot help you with that :/ I removed the tip on Decode Talker's page because it would be possible to summon fusions to the extra zones, without relying on the zones Talker points to. I suggest you to search for some video on Youtube and adding those tips on Magical Scientist's page, since he is the lynchpin of the OTK strategy you are looking for. Also, I would recommend you to do not write too intricate tips, that require specific and restrict set-ups, because complicated tips are counter-productive and hard to achieve GustaphMax (talk • contribs) 02:41, July 28, 2017 (UTC)
Extra Monster Zones
Umm, actually, each player can only use one Extra Monster Zone. So it would be harder to make a modern Magical Scientist Deck.RedEyesBurn69 (talk • contribs) 19:57, July 28, 2017 (UTC)
