User talk:Skuld14148

new +

Hi, I still dont understand, so I guess can you please tell me were to find such information of when to sign or not information. Thank You. Because I dont know what are talk pages.

User:88.110.189.168
Hey Skuld.

You blocked User:88.110.189.168 this weekend. I checked my email this morning and found about 30 password requests from that IP address, dated Sep 24. I'm just curious: did any other admins/users get the same thing? &mdash;Tanaric 09:26, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Not me. --Karlos 09:33, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Not I. He seemed to have picked you, seen his list? ;) &mdash; Skuld 09:42, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Good to know. I've never been specifically targetted by a vandal before! &mdash;Tanaric 16:04, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * * sigh* You'll always remember your first time, Tanaric.  :P  --Rainith 16:16, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * You must be the lucky one; I wasn't contacted either. He must've gotten your name from the "Contact an admin" link on the left. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

Hey finally
Just saying Hi as we finally meet in game ^_^ --Woonack 11:01, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * /wave &mdash; Skuld 11:07, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

Attention Please.

 * poke*-Onlyashadow 14:38, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Poking? Is that the best you can do? d; Boring! &mdash; Skuld 14:43, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

Whee
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.189.215.84. I've been ignoring the formatting of acquisition besides removing "to be added." --Fyren 02:58, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, ok. I suggested this at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills, never got any further tho &mdash; Skuld 03:38, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Vote on GuildWiki talk:Builds
Since you are one of the most active build testers, I was hoping for a contribution of you there. Maybe you'll find the time =) --Xeeron 04:24, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Wow, thats a lot of text! I've put in a vote and read it :) &mdash; Skuld 04:51, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I've just finished printing GuildWiki talk:Builds, although I've read lots of bits and pieces of it over time I haven't followed the lastest developments (in the last couple of days) and hence haven't voted. So I'm now holding 37 pages of discussion, it was either this or start reading The Hobbit although I think The Hobbit would be less weighty! I'll try to get through it in the next hour or so, hopefully I won't miss the voting deadline. --Xasxas256 00:55, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Deleting builds without even voting?
Why? --Karlos 09:02, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * If its very similar, the 2 pages get merged together and 1 gets rid of, the "Deathly MM" had 1 difference: deathly swarm which is listed as a varient at N/Mo_Minion_Master &mdash; Skuld 09:05, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, but the guy was just working on it and you took it from under his feet. Leave him a note on his talk page or something. Or just slap a delete tag on it and then he'll get the picture. --Karlos 06:16, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Immediate Deletion
I'm opposed to this, even though I flagged the articles for deletion, this shouldn't be done for another two weeks as per the policy. - Greven 13:01, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I missed that, sorry Greven &mdash; Skuld 13:02, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I hadn't noticed that in the policy. I think that anything with a "Delete" tag shouldn't need to wait two weeks.  We may want a new tag for this time frame - something like a "delete warning" or "Build Delete".  Then after the two weeks, it can be changed to "delete" to flag it for the admin as ready.
 * Hmmm, I probably should've posted this in the policy's talk page .... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:05, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Or a Speedy deletion tag to make things go faster for articles which are obvious duplicates or the such. [[Image:Chuiu Me Icon.png]] (T/C) 13:14, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Builds is not a policy, just a draft. --Fyren 13:16, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * It was once a policy, now parts of it have been changed. There was discussion on alternate policies in the talk page, and while this did not reach any fruitful conclusion, objections to what are currently written in the policy need to be brought about in the talk page. - Greven 13:25, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * No, we never had a builds policy, just a "what we've been doing so far" for builds. That article is not even a month old.  --Fyren 13:28, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Meh, my mistake. - Greven 13:50, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Skuld (or another admin), can you please restore the ones deleted? - Greven 19:14, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Restored (I think I got all of them) and changed the delete tag to the abandoned one (I'm not saying that the abandoned tag is the way to go, but this will keep them out of Category:Candidates for deletion, I'll leave what to do with all the builds to others). --Rainith 20:52, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Your CSS
For the ID on template:C3, I would suggest using a more generic ID such as "campaign notice" or "pre-campaign notice". That way, the same ID can be used for each consecutive campaign and you won't need to modify your CSS each time to accomodate the new ones. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:56, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


 * If he made it more generic then he should use the class attribute and not the ID attribute. I think "nightfall-notice" is a perfectly suitable ID, but he could use a class of "campaign-notice" or "notice" instead. Of course, I'm being a little pedantic here :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:09, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Good point, a class would be the better choice for a more generic name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:12, 29 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm not that bothered about it, I wanted to just show the logo and not message, didn't work so I gave up &mdash; Skuld 10:01, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I just used the following CSS in User:LordBiro/monobook.css to reduce the size of the nightfall warning icon and make the box smaller. I don't know how universal it is though!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:39, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


 * 1) nightfall-notice { float: right; clear: right; width: 76px !IMPORTANT; min-width: 0px !IMPORTANT; }
 * 2) nightfall-notice img { height: 64px; width: 64px; }
 * 3) nightfall-notice p, #nightfall-notice ul { display: none; }

Why?
You have blocked my Onlyashadow account from making edits...I can assume because you think I was abusing the build voting/rating system. Although my alleged actions may have been "naughty" I would like you to explain to me why the two favored votes in the W/any Enraged Smasher talk page are not also subject to strikeout ...If you could also unblock my editing ability that would be super-terrific.-85.195.119.22 10:53, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

In Response
(to your note on my talk page) I did not cheat. The loging was a simple mistake due to me letting my friend use my computer so he could vote.-11:05, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

68.236.0.0/14
The ones in that range are probably a pool of dynamic IPs. The others are probably open proxies. --Fyren 11:16, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Thats the word I wanted >_< &mdash; Skuld 11:17, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Also, 85.195.119.14-15 and 85.195.119.22-25 appear to belong to anonymouse.org, a public proxy. --Fyren 11:27, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I find the action of "Silencing" me and continual blocking of these IP's uncouth and immature. I would expect more from people running a wiki.-85.195.123.22 11:36, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * No. 209.173.128.203 and 38.119.107.81 are definitely open proxies.  Ignoring the votes cast from your IP and username on Talk:W/any Enraged Smasher, considering the edit histories/vote times for those IPs, it's pretty clear someone at your computer did it.  I don't care if it was you or your friend.  I agree with Skuld on this.  I am going to ban the anonymouse.org proxy IPs.  You can wait a week or try e-mailing Tanaric to appeal.  --Fyren 11:46, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Or...not :\

 * You reek of hostility, now if you could please send me the following, I promise to stay banned till my OaS's week is up:


 * Tanarics Email
 * Guildwiki's policy/ToS reguarding users using proxies
 * -64.92.167.26 11:57, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The main issue is cheating the vote system for your own ends. User:Tanaric &mdash; Skuld 11:59, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Thank you, I\'ll be back on the 10th.-75.126.40.74 12:05, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Blood Spiker
You did this: (cur) (last) 14:27, 4 October 2006 Skuld (Talk | contribs) m (→Blood Spiker - better example please...) I guess, if there are no example at all, any example is enough good.
 * Unsound logic if there ever was one :s List Shadow Strike and Vampiric Gaze but don't provide an actual bar, imo, and point at the tombs team build &mdash; Skuld 11:36, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

After a shortly considering, I guess u have right, and not:) I dont think the stone of Caba is in my own, I have modified my wiev at N/Mo Blood Spiker thing. Please help me, if u have tried this build in PvE situation, and u can make it better. I have really enough from that thing, if I am a necro I should have been MM or SS and nothing else. Crowley 22:40, 4 October 2006 (CET)


 * If it is PvE you shouldn't be spiking. Blood spike is 5-8 necros killing one target in 2 seconds.


 * Heres a random PvE blood build you may like

good luck &mdash; Skuld 15:48, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

Hmm how many Factions skill.. so tricky.. thanks at all. I have to thinking well. Maybe I thought a different thing. Spike a big mount and heal well. Crowley 00:19, 5 October 2006 (CET)

Images, images... so many images... (more deletes)
Images that aren't linked to anymore, as better images have been uploaded. Image:Kz15kMRit.jpg Image:Kz15KMRitSilverBlueGreen.jpg Image:Maleritualist15kkurzickarmorfront.JPG Image:Maleritualist15kkurzickarmorback.JPG Image:Ritmalekurzascendedcomponent1.jpg Image:Ritmalekurzascendedcomponent2.jpg Image:Ritmalekurzascendedhead.jpg

Thanks -Auron  21:24, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

The immage for Armor of Mist does not appier even though it is there when you actualy go to the immage in queestion. Thought you'd like to know. Sir On The Edge 16:20, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * http://gw.gamewikis.org/images/a/ad/Armor_of_Mist.jpg your ad blocker will be stopping it from showing. Mediawiki organises images into folders, just happened that the code on this was "ad" &mdash; Skuld 16:26, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Ecelent, I've whitelisted it. You should prolly move it though before some other confused soul come along. Sir On The Edge 17:19, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

"Usage Notes"
I noticed you changing "Useage Notes" to "Notes". When I encounter the former on a skill page, should I change it to the latter? Frostty1 00:19, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It should be 'Notes', not 'Usage Notes'. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeh, and strip all the "do not remove this" commented stuff (lol..) &mdash; Skuld 01:07, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Related Skills -> Related skills too &mdash; Skuld 01:08, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

sometimes you just need a little laugh...
[http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AA%2FW_Cracker&diff=349251&oldid=348132 That might interest you... somebody invented a new skill!] ^^ ~ Nilles (chat) 09:54, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh i'm loving that xD &mdash; Skuld 09:55, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * lol :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:38, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Sorry about the edit
Hey Skuld,

I apologize for reverting the edit you did. I just checked the history after the fact and realized that I put back what you removed. I'll be sure to check the history next time before making edits.

Deacon


 * Np, its easy to get mixed up with conflicts, the screen isn't very clear ^-^. Just need to link to the same thing once :) &mdash; Skuld 14:35, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Request
As one of the most well known names arround this wiki site I wonder if you could comment on some of the Nightfall builds I'm working on, I don't know if you do requests but it would be it's wheight in gold (he he, digital gold) to me if you could take a look. It's on my user page, I've set up a space in my talk section for any of the builds I'm working on that are unreleased for testing. It's all theoretical of course but I can't help feeling 2 out of the 4 may not be as good as I planned. Sir On The Edge 16:09, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The scyth assassin one looks interesting, i'll give that a go when nightfall comes out. Soulbreaker ftw! Paragon one looks solid apart from "Stand Your Ground!" which is a bit of a naff skill really, ele AoE and warriors are still tough dmg dealers and it will be useless against them, i'm unsure of how tough and frequent paragon mobs will be for it to be worth it. The anti-enchantment build looks interesting, but I strongly recommend you add in parasitic bond as a cover! I am unsure of the ele, it looks a bit spread out and not too useful >_< Nice builds ^-^ &mdash; Skuld 16:33, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Scyth: Good to hear. Paragon: It was a bit of a throw in skill, I'll swap it for "We Shall Return!" and the rez signet for Signet of Return. Anti-Ench: Do you mean Parasitic Bond instead of Blood of the Aggressor or Signet of Sorrows? Personally I think Blood of the Aggressor but I'm in love with both skills :( . Elementist: I have yet to see a good mixed build and I have alwayes wanted to make the first that mixes them in a way that each skill contributes the next, but alas I may have to wait for the 4th episode to emerge. Sir On The Edge 17:20, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Drop awaken imo. Awaken is unreliable and not that great, have you seen how much blood and curse skills increase at high levels? >_< &mdash; Skuld 17:16, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Advice taken, but now BOTA is the only blood skill I'm using and it's annoying me. Do you think I should leave it of swap it for Defile Flesh? (which is also a loveable skill) Sir On The Edge 17:28, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm realy excited about the new P/R build I have made but I need you to tell me if when I score a critical hit, will the weapon deal the maximum damadge even though I do not meet it's requierments? It does not state this anywere and you've been so helpfull so far. Do say if I'm annoying you. Sir On The Edge 17:44, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not good with damage and criticals, sorry! :( &mdash; Skuld 17:50, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Complications in build vetting
Hey Skuld, there is something amiss at Talk:W/any Utility Warrior, regarding the first five 'favored' votes. I've already asked Tanaric about an IP scan, but I've learned that such is not possible. Since you're concerned with builds, I would like you to know about this and I'd appreciate your input. ~ Nilles (chat) 09:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I've blocked all the one-contrib accounts, they all voted within minutes of each other. I am unsure of NMX112 (cont) and DeathByPepsi, i've asked for them to provide their IGNs. NMX112's contributions are mainly voting on Pepsi's builds (utility and dominator) and discussion on the Mo/Rt healer, which Pepsi has also been activte on. Looking at it 75.33.138.89 could be Pepsi too, the IP's sole contribution is a vote on the Mo/Rt build, and it starts off with "Good build," like NMX112 and DeathByPepsi. I'll give NMX112 a bit to prove his innocance as I am unsure about this account. Tiresome :( &mdash; Skuld 09:25, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Kinda sad if someone would actually go through all that trouble just to get their build vetted. x___X — Jyro X [[Image:Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|25px]] (contribs) 09:27, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I guess you've already had your way with the problem then. I'm just glad I didn't have to claim socketpuppetry. :) ~ Nilles (chat) 09:30, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

NMX and Lenzeppellin have the same writing style, both use "PS" and highlight emphesis (sp) in CAPITALS. I need some more opinions on Lenzeppellin/NMX112/DeathByPepsi &mdash; Skuld 09:51, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * You're right, they do look close. It's just that their contribs don't match up. The timeline of their edits is not as contiguous as one would expect from a single user. ~ Nilles (chat) 11:29, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It's not that hard for someone to wait a day or use diferent accounts during diferent times. I'm sure I could manage it if I wanted. Also getting my builds liked by the comunity is high prioraty to me and so I would gess it's the same for others too. Sir On The Edge 13:05, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * When are people going to realize that unless you have split personalities you should only have one accout? Just sad that people go through all this trouble thinking that they're being clever.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  13:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

"Date", "User" 13:51:00 6 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 14:01:00 6 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 02:17:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 04:53:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 05:33:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 05:33:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 05:34:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 06:56:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 11:01:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 11:42:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 11:58:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 20:51:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 20:53:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 20:54:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 20:55:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 07:11:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:12:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:13:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:13:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:18:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:19:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:19:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:25:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:27:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:28:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 09:31:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 09:36:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 09:36:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 16:00:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 16:04:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 16:14:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 16:22:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 16:26:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 16:36:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 01:56:00 9 "October", "NMX112" 01:57:00 9 "October", "NMX112" 02:03:00 9 "October", "NMX112" 02:05:00 9 "October", "NMX112" 04:13:00 9 "October", "Lenzeppellin"

These are the edits of both users since Lenzeppellin has started contributing ordered by date. I don't say that a clever mind wouldn't be able to produce something like this, but it's highly unlikely. ~ Nilles (chat) 17:38, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Talk:Mo/any Bond-Powerhealer
Why did you strike Goats and Labmonkeys votes in that vote? Please leave a comment in the summary line, that vote is getting horribly messed up, hard to see what happened when. --Xeeron 13:19, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Reading their comments, neither of them had tested it &mdash; Skuld 14:12, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Still, there are TONS of votes by people who did not actually test builds, there is currently no policy against it. These people claim to have partied alongside the build, which is more than can be said for lots of votes that are not striked out. Please restore the votes. --Xeeron 17:31, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Build sorting
Hey, could you or someone go through the Untested category and see if any of the builds meet the criterial to be moved to tested/unfavored and if so move them? I was casting votes last night (because it seems like very few people are lately) and saw several sin builds that shouldn't be in untested anymore, but since I was the last one to vote on them I dont think I should be moving them as well. Is this correct or if I cast the deciding vote should I move the build as well? Oh, one more quick question. Its 3 votes to move a build, but is it 3 to move to tested, or 3 more than unfavored to move to tested, and vice versa? Thanks a lot.&mdash; Azroth    14:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Um, just generaly voting without testing? You shouldn't do that. Sir On The Edge 14:51, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * lol of course not. I was one of the people who along with 55 got so annoyed with that.  I tested a ton af sin builds over the past week and wrote all my notes on them down, and then went in last night to do mass voting posts after testing them all.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  16:14, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Just making sure. :D Sir On The Edge 16:28, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * You can move the build, even if you have the last vote, it is just kind of "nicer" if it is someone else doing the move. And it is "3 more" for a move to either unfavored or favored. --Xeeron 17:19, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I took care of your latest edits, Azroth. I hope I got them all. ;) ~ Nilles (chat) 17:28, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks :)&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]] 00:21, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Revert Thing
hey is there a template u use for revert messages? i noticed a revert you did and it says like a specific message i've seen before. just wondering --Fiz 19:56, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It's an auto-generated message that is put there when an Admin uses the "revert-button" option. So yeah you've probably seen it before.  :)  --Rainith 22:01, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Ya i have seen it on a couple of your reverts too Rainith. That explains it, thanks. --Fiz[[image:Fiz.jpg]] 18:40, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Banning for sockpuppetry..
I believe you have set a precedent for that, and one that actually went against the apathy that this community has shown about the issue. Please do not ban future suspected sockpuppets, just discount their votes. --Karlos 21:52, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * But won't they just re-vote? Sir On The Edge 01:30, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * If they do, it would be easy to tell, I suppose &mdash; Skuld 02:21, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Ok sure &mdash; Skuld 02:21, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Rt/N Gift of Creation
Wasn't guildwiki in the practice of moving these builds to the authors userpage, sandbox, or stub? Anyway is there a chance you could restore this build so I could move it to one of the more suitable options, it looked like a really nice build and I'd hate to see it be forgotten.-Onlyashadow 11:15, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Sure np &mdash; Skuld 11:17, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Erm...
You reverted a word on a page that I corrected, the original word is a deragatory term that is very offensive to a large group of people. I sincerely urge you to replace it with "idiot".-Onlyashadow 13:46, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Bring it up with Karlos or whoever, you have no right to edit other peoples' text &mdash; Skuld 13:47, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Aside from that little warning that says something like "Please note:If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." you're right! Although I'm sure more prudent action would be taken if it had been if it was a more "popular" offensive word. I will talk to karlos though.-Onlyashadow 13:54, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Lol, would you still post if I edited the above response to say "I am a noob!! ~Only a shadow"? :p I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to talk pages ^^ &mdash; Skuld 13:56, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * First of all, the first sentence of your response doesn't make any sense whatsoever, furthermore I really don't understand how this kind of behavoir is considered acceptable from an admin :\.

Onlyashadow 14:03, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Not really. There are different levels of offensive language and the "R" one is used (prehaps wrongly) a lot online. Posting a load of profanity like that is impolite and seemingly unrelated &mdash; Skuld 14:05, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * By changing the text, you've altered what the original poster said. That is different than changing an article's content.
 * In this case, I do agree with you that the R word is offensive, and should be removed or struck out, with a comment stating that it has been removed/struck out for that reason. However, you should never openly alter to different words what someone said, and certainly not without a comment in the talk such as a (Note:) or some other mention.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I will from now on remember to leave a note in the edit summary when I replace/remove offensive language, a note in the talk seems like it would be out of place and disrupt the post.-Onlyashadow 14:21, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The note really needs to be within the text. Lets say its changed to remove it, and only an edit summary comment is left.  Several months from now, that edit summary comment may no longer be in the most recently changed edits, making it difficult for someone who is just reading it to understand why it appears that words are missing.  If the edit note is left in the text (maybe at the end of the paragraph), then readers many months from now can more easilly understand why the conversation seems to be missing some text. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * In all of the edits I did to change the word, I did just that, I changed to offensive word to a common insult. I also made small changes to the grammar so the new word would fit in as though it were originally put there. It's not as though I blanked senteces or words and just left it that way, if you view the history on the pages you'll see what I'm talking about-Onlyashadow 14:45, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the text should have been left as it originally was. Our goal is not to provide talk pages as a nice, clean playground with rounded edges and padding for children to run freely.  There is no policy dictating text should be inoffensive to everyone.  I would oppose such a policy.  I also strongly think other peoples' comments should not be changed besides to correct links, remove deleted templates, and other wiki-related issues.  Someone recently has been going through and correcting grammar, which I similarly disagree with.  --Fyren 17:52, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I have to disagree, if my poor spelling is helped out by anyone I would be happy, also grammar is just as important. Ask yourself a question, would you rather mis-interporate something or understand it from the word go? Also agresive language should not be condoned as young gammers do come here and it is not very pleasing to read foul language. I'm sure it is a matter of oppinion but if foul language puts people off giving their input then it surely must be a bad thing. Sir On The Edge 18:03, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I oppose in principle any edits to a user's comment on a talk page by another user, for whatever reason. It's a long and slippery slope. Kessel 07:20, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Short and simple: I do not want anyone to edit my talk page comments. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Yup basically people's talk page edit's shouldn't be changed except to fix links etc. (as Fyren has mentioned). The language and tone that people use defines them, it's an intrinsic part of their make up on this site. Even their spelling mistakes and grammatical errors help to differentiate us. I write armor on articles but I'll always write armour on talk pages. In some people's eyes that's a spelling mistake but to me I know I'm one of only a couple of Aussies on the GWiki and as a result probably use a fair bit of Aussie lingo/spelling. We shouldn't all sound the same on talk pages because we're not all the same.


 * I really like the fact that discussion on this site is generally very civil and free of foul language, it's probably one of the major reasons that I've hung around for so long. When people sign up here they'll notice that there's virtually no swearing and they'll write accordingly, it's natural, we all adjust the way we speak depending on present company. The way you talk around your boss is probably going to be different to a group of drunk football supporters you're out with.


 * If a person uses foul language on a talk page post then it degrades their argument, in other words it ends up hurting themself most. If a person's language is becoming a problem, you can bring it up with the user, same as any other issue. --Xasxas256 08:14, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Eh...
 * Anyway, if you are to stop "bad" words from reaching people who would find it offensive (as if that wasn't the point in the first place), you can, at most, replace the word with asterisks, and then add a note saying that it has been blocked out. This is the farthest it could go, although I must note that the wiki isn't designed for children. It's designed for gamers who should be, let's see, 12+. You can't block out things just because they seem inoffensive. Condemn it if you want, censoring is censoring. There are many other deragotory terms used by, ahem, people in this wiki, and many of them aren't critisized, and certainly none of them, as far as I know, have been changed. Will you be changing all of them...? Are we going to have a filter?--Silk Weaker 08:28, 11 October 2006 (CDT)


 * So far I have never needed the use of swear words on talk pages, but I strongly oppose their censoring. --Xeeron 08:56, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Your Beta Weekend Event revert
Care to explain your reason for reverting? "Reverted edits by 134.130.4.46 (Talk); changed back to last version by Stabbot)" and an empty discussion page are not exactly helpful. If you doubt the facts, I could probably dig up some evidence. 134.130.4.46 04:43, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * A mistake, I misread it. Sorry! &mdash; Skuld 05:30, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * No problem, thanks! 134.130.4.46 11:15, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

how 2 become an admin
How does one become an admin?--slogankid1 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Via Requests for adminship. If you're wanting to become one I offer this advice: think why you want the responsibility, and contribute a lot more :) &mdash; Skuld 12:03, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

Struckout votes
You seem to have struckout votes in Talk:W/E Shocking Flurry, and I must wonder "why?".-Onlyashadow 12:34, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
 * User_talk:Skuld &mdash; Skuld 12:47, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It would be greatly appreciated if you could actually answer my question.-Onlyashadow 13:01, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I was pointing at Fyren's response. All in the same dynamic IP pool and very close together in times. If its your friends then they might want to offer a shot of their char in action prehaps? &mdash; Skuld 13:04, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Now let's be reasonable, same "dynamic IP pool" & friends from school... I wonder... maybe it's truth. Show me two IP proxies that have IP's that are that close and you then have barely enough reasoning to discount them. Also the proxies fyren listed from anonymous are no where near the IP's on the vote page. The time difference is also a few hours between the first two and more than a week between 2nd and 3rd. No anon votes have ever needed justification and proof of validity before, and unless this is made policy I refuse to submit to your request. If you insist of crossing out the votes, you should have some evidence to support your claims.-Onlyashadow 13:16, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

http://visualroute.visualware.com/ http://ws.arin.net/whois

68.239.206.28 NetRange:  68.236.0.0 - 68.239.255.255 CIDR:      68.236.0.0/14

68.239.222.181 NetRange:  68.236.0.0 - 68.239.255.255 CIDR:      68.236.0.0/14

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AW%2Fany_Enraged_Smasher&diff=342421&oldid=342420

67.80.155.17 sounds like you, and is in the same area

I'm no expert on this.. if you want better info can you get hold of Fyren, he seems to know more about this than me :( &mdash; Skuld 13:57, 12 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I explained the logging mistake earlier on this page

Is it uncommon for friends, who see each other every day, talk to each other every day, and have a group of mutual friends, to sound the same? No, it's not. If I was in the habbit of using IP anonymizers to get my way with voting N/Rt Undead Priest and W/any Trollocaust would be doing a lot better, wouldn't you agree? Aside from that two other people with accounts voted infavor of the build. That, as inconcievable as this may seem to you, means that the build ISN'T bad and could have more supporters who didn't say "No Sever/gash? No favor." even though there is a variant just for that combo. Once again, the reason they are from the same "pool" is because...now pay attention here...we all go to school together. I would appreciate if you stopped crossing out votes with that famous haste of yours while you have no proof of illegitimate actions but only suspicion.-Onlyashadow 14:21, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
 * That works 2 ways, I want proof from your end that it is different people &mdash; Skuld 14:22, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
 * As much as I enjoy the struggle of explaining fact and common sense to you, I would be glad assist you with visuals. Would you mind setting acceptable parameters for such a request?-Onlyashadow 14:27, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
 * An image of each player making a couple of kills prehaps? Shadow couldn't you have saved all this trouble by offering this earlier? From my point of view there is something fishy going on and you weren't willing to offer anything more than your word to prove your innocence. When there is something like that going on there is only so much I could do. Do we leave these questionable votes up and compromise the build vetting? &mdash; Skuld 14:42, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Only offering my word? Did you happen to skim through the paragraph that I just put up? I Offered you many reasons to defend myself against your accusation, I also don't believe I offered you my word at all! If you took the time(or if you have the ability) to identify the IP addresses you will find that they all came from computers at my school. Please read through my post again and think about it. I will supply you with pictures by monday but you will have to walk me through the picture uploading process on the guildwiki.-Onlyashadow 14:55, 12 October 2006 (CDT)


 * As it stands now, I am more inclined to believe those are corrupt votes, than good ones. I need to see proof to the contrary. --Karlos 15:12, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
 * As it stands now that is the popular belief, and I have already given somewhat thorough reasoning on the subject refuting the points against me, and now plan to give skuld the screens he is asking for. What more would you like me to do karlos?-Onlyashadow 15:17, 12 October 2006 (CDT)


 * What I would "like" you to do is drop the condescending tone, act like a responsible contributor and contribute something positive for a change... However, since that will likely not happen, let's stick to what I "want" you to do. What I want you to do is have those people post using those IPs and provide IGNs. If they cannot re-use those IPs, then basically, their votes are gone, for good. They need to be able to show up with those IPs and give me IGNs so I can PM them in game and check that they are real (and distinct characters). In the future, you may suggest to your school buddies that they create a user account. And finally, yes, I do not believe that being friends with someone makes you type like them. So, overall, your "thorough" refutation has been far less than satsifactory in my book. --Karlos 15:52, 12 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Like myself, they might be on dynamic IP range and inable to reuse them. (Nilles) 84.164.122.129 04:01, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Quite possible...although I'll find out now since the guildwiki is back up finally. Karlos you seem to make up rules as you go along, make threats, and seem to put yourself above everyone else you disagree with...how on earth could I possibly respect that?-Onlyashadow 14:51, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't think anyone cares about your respect right now, what they want is proof. And as Karlos has said, IGNs seem the way to go. If you want to prove yourself "thoroughly," it's a better idea to follow orders then to act like a dickweed poor sport. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 18:02, 13 October 2006 (CDT)

What the hell is wrong with you people?!?! Skuld, Karlos what is your problem? I would have expected better from admins. Since when does your title give you the right to ignore policy? If you have forgotten parts of it, you might want to brush up on it at Category:Policy. Pay particular attention to Assume good faith, and You are valuable (while it seems that several people disagree with this being policy as they have posted on its talk page, it is still policy). Karlos, This last one applies more to you than Skuld, as your last post was definitely made almost entirely of you talking down to another user (last time I checked you were no better than anyone else here). You say that you would like Onlyashadow to "drop the condescending tone", and at the same time take one up. It is not on the IP addresses or Onlyashadow, as far as I can see, to prove that they are more than one person or that their votes were made in good faith. Nor does this debate between Onlyashadow and Skuld give you, Karlos, a chance to get in a free cheap shot on another user. Skuld, believe it or not, Universities or any organization that has its own dynamic IP pool will be issuing users similar IP addresses. As far as I can see Onlyashadow has offered more than enough explanations of who those addresses are and why they are similar to his. It should not be put on him to prove that he is not guilty when your case is circumstantial at best and full of holes. If there was any pattern of Onlyashadow using random IPs to cast votes than your accusations might hold water. But as you have not as of yet offered up any, and as he stated his builds would be doing better in the poles if he did, I assume there is no abuse here and that you two should take a step back and cool your heads before going around striking out any IP vote and accusing people of using IPs as sock puppets.

On a lighter note I have to commend the admins for not abusing this bit of policy from GuildWiki:Administrators. Quote--''Administrators can ban users at will. This is usually done in cases of vandalism, and permanent bans are usually reserved for spambots. However, if an administrator feels it prudent, he may remove a user from the wiki for any reason, or no reason at all.''--End Quote. It speaks volumes to their character that they can be involved in an apparently personas debate and not abuse this bit of policy.&mdash; Azroth    01:24, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I apologize for the long read but I tend to be a bit longwinded when I see something blatantly offensive and prejudicial.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]] 01:26, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Azroth, I am sure you are aware of my intervention in the DeathByPepsi incident (in not, here). This case is different. The IP ranges are similar, the typing styles are similar. There is an edit done by one of the IPs that seems to have been done by Onlyashadow. There are grounds for the suspicion other than that they are X number of votes in N minutes. Do you seriously believe that being friends with Joe will make you type like Joe?
 * In any case. My request still stands, and the votes need to be linked to real and separate IGNs. If you or anyone else has a problem with that, take it with Tanaric.
 * As far as my tone, I was (and still am) extremely tired of some new guy who gets on, acts like his build is the most important article in the world, indulges in shady business (he never mentioned those voters were his "buddies" till later) and then gives us an earful of mockery and disdain as if he is doing us a favor. I am fully aware of GW:YOU, but I feel this new crop of build contributors are full of it (not to mention most of their builds are "it"). And I am tired of having to put up with this kindergarten called the builds section. It's not just Onlyashadow, he's just the most recent incarnation. --Karlos 02:31, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree that the issue with the signature change and the similar grammar is suspicious (man, I have to stop posting things after 1:00Am). I also understand your frustration with the builds section.  However, I still don’t see how this gives anyone a right to instantly assume that all similar IPs are Onlyashadow and thus cross them out.  If anything, the issue here should be pertaining to this---> http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AW%2Fany_Enraged_Smasher&diff=342421&oldid=342420 and then only after it is proved that these two are the same people should these votes be called into question.  As for the scolding I gave last night, Sorry, I was tired and you two probably didn’t deserve it.  Please accept my apologies, but also consider that this issue is putting the cart before the horse, and should be looked at from the angle of the signature change first, and the issue of the votes only after this issue is resolved.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  13:29, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

Moving Pages
HI, you moved my page, which I do understand why after it happened, but I was in the middle of doing it and ended up recreating it thinking I had lost it due to a mistake I made. Is there not a way to let one know that your moving something if they are in the middle of editing?

PS: you can remove user:Nzmitzi as well as thanks to your move i discovered your page and how to create a sub-page as well. - thanks!====NZMitzi 12/10/2006
 * Is that better (User:Nzmitzi)? Be aware that your user name is Nzmitzi, not NZMitzi :) &mdash; Skuld 14:08, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

Friends of onlyashadow
Mikes' being repressed!68.239.149.248 14:55, 13 October 2006 (CDT) Free shocking flurry.-68.239.149.248 14:59, 13 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Uh, stop spamming my page &mdash; Skuld 15:01, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * >.> should they have posted on karlos's page instead? Either way I need to get going, I should've left already. Skuld I'll get you the screens and karlos if you'd be so kind as to send me your IGN email onlyashadow2188@hotmail.com I'd be more than happy to have them talk to you. Leaving now, If I'm not available during the weekend I'll try getting on monday.-Onlyashadow 15:08, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Lol, worst atemt at looking like 2 diferent people ever. :D (Cough/ Onlyashadow /Endcough) Sir On The Edge 15:33, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Well they are posting from a campus. Hence the similar IPs. ~ Nilles (chat) 15:53, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * No, this is the worst attempt at looking like 2 different people...*ahem* I am not Azroth.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]] 16:24, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Hi, I'm Azroth. That post above this one is not me :)&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  16:24, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * *stands up* I'm Azroth! &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Maybe they are friends :P. &mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]] 7:53, 14 October 2006 (GMT)

All of this is irrelevant, Onlyashadow... As I said, have your two buddies with similar IPs post their separate IGNs on my talk page (or here) and post a time where all three of you will be on at the same time. --Karlos 02:32, 14 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The only way to prove that you are separate people is to meet Karlos in game os taht you are all there at the asme time. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

In all seriousness, I'm a little worried about the precedant being set / carried out here. Since when are you guilty until proven innocent on the GuildWiki? I'm not flatly countermanding this course of action because I don't know the history behind it&mdash;however, the only posts I've seen from admins about it state basically that "you appear to be one person, so you have to prove you're not," which is slightly more draconian than I'm used to seeing. &mdash;Tanaric 07:29, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * There is no precedent being set. There is sufficient evidence to consider the votes suspect. The IP ranges are eerily similar, the anonymous users who sound like Onlyashadow and only post on THIS issue are VERY suspect. As is the mark of all puppet-masters, he had no problems finding IP anonymizers and posting back here as soon as he was blocked. His story is plausible, but needs to be verified. I personally believe that with the introduction of the "abandoned" tag, build authors (namely those who do it for fame, rather than sharing a good idea) have more incentives to "rush their builds" through the process. I think it's not a good idea and I think we are seeing manifestations of people asking their groupies (or perhaps making up groupies) to get their builds through.
 * Read this section first, Tanaric and I think you'll come to realize that our shadowy friend is a little more than he seems. --Karlos 16:57, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

Email
Hey Skuld, if you don't mind, please toss me an email. &mdash;Tanaric 08:59, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

Reverts
Hey I'm noticing all these "reverted edit by Naff, changed to last version by (random editor). I looked through the history of most of these and it seems like nothing is actually reverted by you o.O (Not a fifty five 13:28, 15 October 2006 (CDT))