Thread:Willbachbakal/@comment-4881935-20150119072800/@comment-1330314-20150122054856

It's cute, you think you're in a position to give me an ultimatum. I'd be happy to provide you with answers to whichever questions you've managed to formulate in at least semi-readable English, but this is my talk page, not a sub-section of the discussion. I maintain that my answers and protocol are justified, and until we come to a consensus on that discussion, you are going to be nice and stop defacing the existing cost analysis sections with whichever petty revenge fantasy you've developed this time. As I recall, the entire point of that discussion was to come up with a proper definition of gold value and gold efficiency, as well as formulate an approved set of guidelines to construct cost analyses for any item. I'm contributing to that, yet you seem to be under the impression that whichever method you might have is so self-evident that you do not feel the need to justify it, let alone mention it to anyone else but yourself. It is ironic that you press me for proof and facts on every statement I make, yet have the tremendous arrogance to think your ideas are not only waterproof, but also the default option for this wiki. You may have held a position of power here, but you are not the architect of the cost analysis system here, and despite what you may wish you will never be the only person working on it. Now, you can choose to take a step back, cast away your biases and grudges and ego, and start working constructively on that discussion, or you can choose to shoot yourself and this project in the foot. Again.

It would be nice to see you try to justify yourself for once, though. Like I said, I'd be happy to explain myself, but you're going to have to stand up to scrutiny too. Wouldn't want your preferences getting in the way of a decent protocol, wouldn't we?