User talk:Xeeron16725

Congratulations!
I am hereby granting you the "finally provided me with a convincing reason to use an account" award. While you are not the first to mention marking minor edits, you were the first to do it while I was actually making many edits. --68.142.14.80 08:12, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Hehe, welcome to the account-using-wiki then, I guess ;-) --Xeeron 08:23, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

unfavored in categories
i just went through there not two weeks ago removing categories from unfavored builds. how did those get back in? --Honorable Sarah 09:27, 25 August 2006 (CDT)


 * No idea, maybe you missed them or someone moved them after you checked. I looked at the whole category, but only about 5 builds had categories. The rest of all my edits is from untested. --Xeeron 09:30, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * ya, i'm seeing that now... i love your enthusiasm, but i think that was a bit premature. if untested is made into an isolated category, those builds may never get tried, and will sit in untested forever. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:21, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * It is linked from the builds portal, plus those actually testing are mostly those who know the wiki structure. Lord Biro was right that the categories should not be cluttered by untested builds. --Xeeron 05:10, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * seriously, stop messing with the categories on untested, that discussion is still floating. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:28, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Seriously, I didnt continue since I stopped yesterday ;-) --Xeeron 17:16, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Blech, it's all your fault...
Ok, so this guy made the following vote: Talk:Team - 55/Famine

The vote DOES say "unfavored" so he expressed his disfavor for the build, despite admitting it DOES work. What gives?

The way you ask the question "Is the build tested or unfavored?" is like the question "Is your brother tall or blond?" You make an either-or of two unmatching things. I think you need to either word the question as "Does the build work?" or "Do you like this build?" --Karlos 08:32, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I guess his reasoning is: Yes, it does work, you dont die. But, it takes to long to be effective, you could achieve the same result with much less time using another build -> Since time is a major issue for farming builds: unfavored. Seems pretty logic to me. --Xeeron 11:50, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * But the finding and the conclusion do not match. If he tested it, he can't find out that "SS is way faster." Right? --Karlos 18:58, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Wait so you're essentially saying that "Tested vs Unfavored" is actually: "Tested and favored" vs "Tested and Unfavored"?--Karlos 19:02, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I would like to have more strict guidelines. However, on this case he can't say that 'SS necro is better' becase a ranger wanting to get to UW can't be a SS necro, so he needs another build - this one for example. A build can't be unfavored, because there is a build for another profession which is better in the same task. If there is a similiar but better build for the same profession, then you could vote with that reason. This is all my point of view ofcourse, but I would like to see it made official in some way. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes. Yes. No. ;-)
 * He can find out, by testing this build, testing SS and comparing the time. Yes it is "Tested and favored" vs "Tested and Unfavored". A build can be unfavored because there is another profession is doing a better job, or else we would be flooded by W/mo healers. I see your point though that this might be a special case if there is no other possibility for rangers to farm there. --Xeeron 03:36, 30 August 2006 (CDT)


 * There is the UW trapping team, but if a ranger wants to go with a 55hp, it's this or barrage. SS is not an option, so it shouldn't be a reason for unfavoring. We really should make ome sort of guideline for this. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Well I dont want to go on defending a build that I have neither read, nor tested, but I can understand that there needs to be something here that enables rangers to farm UW, but why is "go with a 55hp" a goal in itself? Maybe 55 and rangers just dont fit together well. Noone would want us to have an all mesmer team for Defend denravi just for the sake of it.


 * Btw, I wanted to write something like Builds on the wiki for a bit now, but the vote here and the discussion here should end first. --Xeeron 07:53, 30 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Good that you are on to it sooner or later. And the goal isn't to "go with a 55hp", but to go duo and be fast. Trapper duo is really slow compared to anything with a 55hp tank and ranger damage dealer. I tried to discuss with the voter, but he hasn't replied to me yet. If he does, Iw ill try to explain this to him. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, that is a valid point. If the build is faster than all other ranger farming builds and is fast enough so ranger farming is not at an huge disadvantage compared to other classes farming, it should not be unfavored. Still puzzled how all this is my fault thought ;-) --Xeeron 08:08, 30 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ehhh, yeah. Why are we actually talking on your talk page? I thought that this is some kind of inside thing that you were awear of. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think Karlos is refering to his (failed) attempt to assassinate me and rewrite the (unwritten) build policies to make build include only skills from his user page. --Xeeron 08:14, 30 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ach so, jetzt versteh ich. Danke. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Looking For Input
Just asking, would you mind giving some input on Talk:W/Mo_Troll_Farmer? Since we have W/Mo Solo Farmer, being a better written build than the Troll Farmer build, with very much identical skill choices+variants and identical usage, it's rather redundant to have two builds for the same purpose (well, technically, the Solo Farmer covers more ground).

Thanks.&mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 14:16, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

A little misunderstanding
I', not blaming anyone, this is just a little misunderstanding. Look: talk:Me/Mo Faster Caster you voted for unfavored and the plea was that "it doesn't make the spells recharge 50% faster" but actually, it does. The elite skill Mantra of Recovery lowers the recharge of spells by 50%. I'd suggest to remove your vote or change the plea. That's all. --I Follow The Blind 12:38, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
 * You are correct. I missread Mantra of Recovery for Mantra of Recall, sorry. --Xeeron 16:06, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

Re: your post to your user page
zaishen 12:43, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) The discussion in Talk:Builds is not predicated on there being too many of them but that builds are not factual. My argument to move them off this wiki is based on my belief that the current status quo is impossible to change. You have very little to fear as the most likely outcome is that nothing will change.
 * 2) My proposal on GuildWiki talk:Builds will likely not be approved as no one has agreed with me.
 * 3) Your argument for the current voting practices has always been that we will never (be able to) vet builds (in time) without this process. This begs the question.


 * Xeeron, I was surprised to see today that there has been some support voiced for my proposal on GuildWiki talk:Builds after all. Yet, I don't want to proceed with this plan if it will mean that you'll stop being involved with the builds section; whatever the issue with the builds and vetting, I doubt anyone wants to make changes at any cost. If you are feeling less fatigued today, can you reconsider the matter? I hope you understand that your opinion is valued highly so you have de facto veto power over any of the builds revamp suggestions. You can use the email user feature to respond to me privately if you want. zaishen 12:00, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

Holy cows
Just so you know, Xeeron, I do remember when you and I pretty much revamped the builds section by ourselves (you more than me, I don't mean to rain on your parade). I remember what it looked like before. And I feel your pain. I, too, know what the voting process changed. But on the other hand, I think it is cool that a lot of people now want to get involved -- that is really not a bad thing, but a good one. Not only does it mean there's more hands and eyes on the builds project, but that what we turned it into worked. The section grew and prospered. It also ultimately means that maybe something new is needed, once again, to replace what used to be good enough.

When the builds section was last redone, we needed to make the process more interesting, more streamlined, more attractive to all those people who thought builds on GuildWiki were a joke. Remember how they used to say that was the one thing that was crap? Not any more. But maybe now it is time for yet another revamp. Just because what we did back then was better than what came before, it doesn't have to end there. Why not give some of the other ideas and people a whirl? Let the young bloods at it for a while. If they break it, fine. We can come back and fix it. But they probably won't. They'll just make it different. And it might even be really cool.

Personally, I read most of the discussions. And I stick my head up from time to time. But mostly, I let those with the new ideas and the drive do the driving (pun intended). Part of that is, obviously, because I am now spending most of my wikitime on HammerWiki -- but it is also because some of the changes that I helped implement some times get axed, and once in a while I need to take a step back and realise that they're not mine, they belong to the wiki. If I don't step back, I end up feeling that I'm getting cut, which is obviously not the case. It's really just like the first time one of your builds is voted "crap of the month" and you just want to hit people for not trying hard enough to see how brilliant it is. But in the end, you have to let it go. Something better takes its place.

And some times, you just have to slaughter one of those holy cows.

--Bishop 13:35, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * As often, I completely agree with Bishop's comments.


 * Please keep in mind that just because the Builds process is going through flux does not mean any of us devalue you or your contribution. It is because you worked so hard to make a builds section viable that we can even consider adapting it now. You put this process in motion, and we're all very appreciative of your efforts. And we all hope you can work with us to continue making the builds process the best it can possibly be.


 * Just because I think builds might be better off hosted elsewhere does not mean I intend to sabotage the work you've done. On the contrary -- I support you and builds wholeheartedly, and I hope that the section can grow even more meaningful and even more central to the wiki.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 12:54, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

That reaction tells me that it took a step back just in time. Feeling like being personally attacked when in fact just some procedure in a wiki is attacked is not healthy. And if indeed I had a "de facto veto", that is one more reason to take the backseat for a bit. In the end, noone should have a veto of any kind in wikis. --Xeeron 04:23, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

Note to Xeeron
Heya mate I just wanted to leave you a quick note. I considered emailing it to you because it's just a kind of quick note but then again there's not reason why it shouldn't been seen by all. Xeeron, now matter how many new users and random IPs have ripped into you in the last couple of days, it doesn't matter, you're still one of the "good guys". I'm struggling to put what I'm thinking into words but basically we all form opinions of people and in my time here, seeing you "in action" and being a part of some reasonably involved debates a while ago with Bishop on some builds related issues, I thing of you as one of the most level headed, easiest people to work with. Even though we disagreed about quite a number of things (e.g. keeping unfavoured builds) discussion was always discussion, never an argument and it was always about working towards a solution, even when we disagreed.

I feel while you're not the "king" of the builds section, there's a number of heavily involved people, but you are probably the grandfather, we all owe you for bringing the builds section up to scratch and continually trying to improve it. I am deeply concerned by the way some of the discussions have gone because I reckon that if people cannot have a healthy discussion with you, then we've got no hope. I've said many times that I don't envy our builds patrollers/build policy proposers, it's a tough and contentious job. But I've always felt that in your capable hands any small storm in a teacup issues will blow over leaving only the big issues which you're well equipped to help steer in the right direction. Perhaps I should have got my hands a bit dirtier.

Well this has become a bit longer than I expected, I'll just finish of with this summary. I don't think you've ever acted as though the builds articles are "yours" and in my mind, you're still very much so one of the good guys. It might not seem like much because a number of people have in varying degrees of harshness gone after you in the last week, but it's gotta count for something ;) I still love your work :) --Xasxas256 06:43, 10 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Just what Xas said. Remember not to take the wiki too seriously. Cheer up and have some fun. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Currently Testing the Viability of…
Alright, here goes nothing. I wasn't sure if I should add one more of these messages because Gem kind of got on my back about posting this on several other user's talk pages (including his). However, as it seems that mostly everyone I asked said no, and I still need help I'll try one more person. From what I've read of your and other posts, you seem to be one of the most active and open minded members on the build section of the wiki. So I was wondering if you could help me out with something. On the above named section on my user page here, I'm testing out several build ideas that I want to submit. To save the testers time wasted on a useless builds, I'm trying to get them to work perfectly before I submit them. I've gotten some good advice from Not a fifty five and Cwingnam2000 on my discussion page here, but I need some diversity of opinion to get them finished and off the assembly line. So...can you give me a hand? Either way, Thanks a lot. Whether you can take the time to help me out personal or not, I still appreciate all you do for the wiki and for the builds section especially.--Azroth 16:07, 10 September 2006 (CDT) PS-Congratulations on the nomination =D


 * I am currently taking a mild form of wiki-break (checking my talk page and giving a quick glance to some important ones only). Primarily to see how the discussion on builds policy will evolve without me, but also to regain the fun of editing here. Maybe I'll find the time to test some of your builds (not really the assassin ones, I dislike that class), are they all for PvE or Random arenas? --Xeeron 06:29, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Ok, no problem, take your time. As for the the PvE or Arena question, I'm not fully sure. I'm currently testing them out in various things (PvE TA RA AB) to see how they hold up, so I'll have to get back to you on that one.--Azroth 12:38, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Good work
I haven't finished reading it yet, but your summary "Unified discussion on future builds policy" is very comprehensive. Good work Xeeron.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:21, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki_talk:Builds
Is that better? feel free to correct any kind of mistake in the suggestion since i'm not good at grammer. -- Cwingnam2000 10:31, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Build Vetting proposal: Two Category System
Please take a look at this. You'll probably see this, but I wanted to bring this idea to your attention. - Greven 13:19, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

boon
This post and its replies have been moved to Talk:Divine_Boon

Holiday Blues
I was wondering what you would suggest doing now with the Holiday Blues and Template:Holiday Blues pages. I was planning to try and fix the categories on the template, as I noticed listing it as a Necro skill was putting it in the Prophecies Necro skills and the all Necro skills categories, which I didn't intend...but I got pulled away from the computer at work for a while and came back to see the delete request. I think simply removing the Necro designation from the template would've cleared it from both of these categories...or were there other categories that it shouldn't have been included in? I've started a discussion about it on the snow fighting skills talk page if you want to chime in. &mdash;Vendetta411 13:41, 20 September 2006 (CDT)

Builds..
For some reason, the build policy discussion has completely died out.. I have recently written a solution that takes into account most comments and good suggestions. Would you care to come take a look? GuildWiki_talk:Builds -- Ifer (t/c) 18:20, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Check out the wikifatigue part in this edit for my take on the issue. --Xeeron 04:35, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but a policy is really something new contributors need to get going. I think the looong vote you started was just not the right way. What you need is a suggestion nobody disagrees with, and implement that. The trick is to implement it after enough time has passed for people to discuss it, but not to wait too long (it has to be done sometime, and we get new input every day on the wiki). Voting is the only way to go if we want to have builds at all, and the 3 to 1 idea works really well with the stub-to-untested nominator. Please go read it and if you agree with it, and nobody comes with a good counterargument within the next week, I say we implement this policy just because the currens policy is not very impressive, and people just do what the first people did(as you said in your wikifatigue). Making a policy and then start working is really the only way for a wiki to shine - it keeps things open to all and prevents a lot of double/extra work. -- Ifer (t/c) 10:08, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I am the last person to stop you from trying to get a policy going, but I have tried about everything possible for over a month now without getting any result. The vote was only the last final attempt: You can see how I set up the vote and wording in an effort to get as many people to agree as possible, I went to peoples talk pages and talked to them there, didnt help. I still read all the posts, but I dont want to reply to them anymore. For the 3-1 idea, I dont see that agreed on anytime soon, check the results of the vote on that. --Xeeron 10:15, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Allright then.. I'll keep fighting for what I believe to be right ;) Most of the 3-1 comments are based upon implemention of the policy, and the rest are based upon the hastened votes that might start appearing. I have devised a system that can fix both problems, because I have someone who checks up on the votes and the builds formal correctness before it is placed into Untested. So still no arguments that counter my policy. I'm going to polish it up a bit now, archive the redundant discussions, and suggest that my suggestion be made policy unless someone can come up with a good counter argument within the next week. -- Ifer (t/c) 11:50, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

Complications in build vetting
Hey Xeeron, we have some problems over at Talk:W/any Utility Warrior, namely the five votes for 'favored'. User:NMX112 is a user who is quite concerned about the build, the other four are newly registered users whose first contribution was casting the vote. I've posted on Tanaric's page requesting to compare the IPs of the users, but the whole issue could be more complex. Can you take a look at it and tell me what you think? ~ Nilles (chat) 09:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Congratulations!
(link) So you overcame your addiction to gw.wiki? :D ~ Nilles (chat) 13:17, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Naw, I just came to realize that clicking the recent changes every 30 seconds is completely normal and healthy behavior ;-) --Xeeron 14:15, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Hehe. You mean like drinking wine because it's healthier than beer? ~ Nilles (chat) 14:18, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Like drinking both, because you dont want to miss out on something healthy (even if it is a bit less healthy than wine). --Xeeron 14:20, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Ummm...Error
Hey, I'd post this somewhere else but this is the first page I've found where the "save page button" is actually there. I'm having major issues with the wiki, with formating not loading correctly or the left and top navbars not even existing, or the buttons for editing pages not existing. In short, it looks like I'm visiting a corrupted web page. Is it just me or is this happening to otheres as well? I need to know so I can determine if its the site or my computer. Thanks.&mdash; Azroth    14:16, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It is happening to everyone. The place to go when GW screws up is usually the GWguru forums, GW section. --Xeeron 15:56, 13 October 2006 (CDT)

Current Process
I try to stay pretty up to date with the goings on with the GWiki, I like to know what's going on and have a say in things. Plus I give a lot of new users help which means I have to know how things work around here. I tried my best to have a say and keep up with the builds aspect but I lost track somewhere, it seems to change every day :P What's the current process for submitted builds? Is there an article or something that explains how it works? I don't want to start a debate on the merits on whatever the system is, I just simply want to know what it is, I don't really submit builds myself but I do want to be able to help others out if I get asked about it, or can see someone who needs a hand on builds. I figured you'd be the guy to ask :) Thanks mate. --Xasxas256 07:19, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * User:Xeeron/Current_build_procedure might help you. Also I'd like to point out that we still don't require voters to actually test the build and assume good faith in the expertise of the voter. All in all, there weren't that much changes since the introduction of rate-a-build and unfavored builds. ~ Nilles (chat) 07:28, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * What Nilles said. There is still a lot of debate about what we should do (look at recent changes for a good example ...), but that link pretty says what we DO do. --Xeeron 07:32, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Ok thanks guys, I thought that after all this time we might have come up with something concrete. And yes I did notice lots of build related goings on in Recent Changes which is one of the reasons I asked, I don't like not knowing what's going on :P Well let me know if there's a new process or if you desperately want me to weigh in on something. A while ago I printed out a copy of the build's talk page and started to read it on the train but it was like more than 50 pages, I fell asleep trying to get through it all and haven't managed to catch up since! --Xasxas256 07:38, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * With the recent goings on regarding the Build policy I really think we should cofidy the current build policy at Builds and begin a sub-article, as suggested by Tanaric on GuildWiki_talk:Policy, to deal with any proposals for changes. I don't think the current build process is the best solution, but since we haven't come to any agreement as to what a better policy would be I think the only sensible option would be to make sure that Builds looks a lot like User:Xeeron/Current_build_procedure.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:42, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Well my newest idea is on Builds, basically removing the detailed process from the builds policy page (and putting it on a separate page). I wanted to give everyone a week or two rest from the continuous discussion, but I will bring it up again before nightfall comes out, because that will considerably disrupt all policy discussion for month or so. --Xeeron 07:43, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Xeeron, I think it'd be better for all involved if you'd detail the de-facto builds policy on Builds and outline any proposed changes to the de-facto policy as a subarticle. In that manner, the builds section can continue to function with some degree of normalcy while we figure this out. &mdash;Tanaric 07:58, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * It actually is. The link at the bottom leads to page which is a direct copy of User:Xeeron/Current_build_procedure. My reasons for removing the actual procedure from the builds page (more or less everything at the current procedure article was at the builds policy article at one, long past, time) are here, especially reasons 2. and 3. make we weary to implement the current procedure as policy. --Xeeron 08:02, 15 October 2006 (CDT)