User talk:Not a fifty five/archive

Skills
while your effort is commendedable, the prefered fix is to replace instances of skills with skills. welcome to the wiki. --Honorable Sarah 17:06, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

hi :) new here at guildwiki and made a stupid mistake XD I thought the page Skills didnt exist when in fact it did, only under the name Skill so I made a new one. I'd send a reply but couldnt fine one in my message box so I'll write it here.  You said we should delete the page, but would it not be better to just wipe the work and write See: skill or does this add unnecesary space or something? I'd go and find the instances of links to skills and change them to skill except a) I'm not really sure how to find them and b) with such a common unexisting page link it seems we'd have to periodically change the new "skills" links that pop up anyways.  I;'m guessing the same problem arises with the Attribute(s) links, as that also appeared in the highly wanted page list right next to skills lol. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Not a fifty five (talk &bull; contribs) 03:52, 10 August 2006 (CDT).
 * ok, i think i gather your meaning. couple of points
 * pluralization is a language construct, not a game construct, so in general it's not our responsibility to record it.
 * MediaWiki, the engine that runs guildwiki, has a special type of page called a redirect. redirects contain nothing but a pointer to another page, that's how we get Rurik and Prince Rurik to point to the same page. we don't redirect plurals either, though i think this is being discussed by people smarter then i at Guildwiki_talk:Redirect.
 * you'll note that all instances that are pointing to skills, rather then skills, are on talk pages and are serving an argument by their absense. when links like the above show up in the regular name space, someone who is patroling Special:Recentchanges, such as i, will catch it. incidentally, this is how i found your new page.
 * i hope that clears things up a bit. i'll be watching this page incase there's any other questions. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:04, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Any General Rules?
I've noticed that there really are no rules given to the editors, and I was just wondering if I was "allowed" to take off the cleanup tag on my Vengeful Extinction build page, seeing as I've cleaned it up to look like any other page. (Not a fifty five 21:40, 12 August 2006 (CDT))
 * You might want to take off the Work in Progress notice first. I took off the cleanup tag after a few very minor changes just for conformity. There are no general rules but if you take off the clean up notice when the article is obviously not cleaned up, another user may readd it or bring it up on the talk page. --Vortexsam 21:55, 12 August 2006 (CDT)
 * with builds, clean up tags are applied when it's sufficently far from the style and formatting guide, which is GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Builds. if you feel it matches closly, then go ahead and remove the tag. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:06, 13 August 2006 (CDT)

Voting
You know, it's funny. I was given this same lecture before. Anyways, please, do not manipulate votes. Nulling perfectly fine points is strictly forbidden, and there's nothing that can change that. The points are very solid and stand by the user's beliefs of what a BR build should be. People just don't like it, and since we are using this voting system to determine tested or untested builds, builds are going to shift different ways depending on the opinions of builds by testers. So once again, please do not manipulate favored/untested/unfavored tags, or votes. What's said has been said. The community unfavored the build. As I said on the Talk page of that build, feel free to move it to your namespace. &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 02:07, 3 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Look I dont care that the build was unfavored rly. I'd put it there myself lol I just wanted to try giving battle rage a decent build >.<.  The problem lies in that it was neither tested nor was it given a discussion, nor was it even given time for people to vote on it.  Until you can find an admin (and if you are one another one) to tell me with a straight face that the "community" should be able to condemn a build in less than one day, I will continue to readmit it for testing.  And so it is not I who am manipulating tags rly, it is whoever put it into unfavored in the first place.  I am merely correcting the one who abused the wiki community. (Not a fifty five 00:19, 4 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Really? There was no abuse there. 3 votes and it's outta here. It is simply your ignorance of our Builds policy that comes into play here. And no, there will be no readmittance for the build unless a major change is made. With around 5 builds a day, we are forced to review builds as fast as possible. Why should we give your build a third try to a build that already has been voted down twice? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:49, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * In any case I got what I wanted, people are starting to talk about this in talk:Builds :D
 * And you know thats not true. I';d rather have 1 good cake then 50 burnt ones, think about that. (Not a fifty five 00:49, 5 September 2006 (CDT))

Current featured tested vote
Ok, first that should be for every few days, not 5 hours, second, your build has not even had a rate-a-build put up &mdash; Skuld 04:00, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Ah okay, yeah I made a comment on it that I didnt know how long critical blade had been up, is there a way to tell? I'm almost certain critical blade was up for over 5 days even o.O. (Not a fifty five 04:04, 4 September 2006 (CDT))

And also what does the rate-a-build part have to do with it? One shouldn't even vote about it for a days discussion and so I didnt bother putting that up yet. Unless you mean by evaluation as in whether it should IMMEDIATELY be put into testing or unfavored, (which doesnt seem to happen to "featured builds")? Anyways I'll leave critical blade up, I hadnt realised it was newly put up. (Not a fifty five 04:11, 4 September 2006 (CDT))
 * Current featured tested build &mdash; Skuld 04:16, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * ??? I replaced critical blade with my build in the untested featured section. The one you even corrected was in the untested featured section.
 * So it was >< Still shouldn't be changed after only 5 hrs tho &mdash; Skuld 04:22, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * You sure it was 5 hrs tho? I swore thats how I found critical blaade when I commented on it like days ago. Anyways, how can I find out when these featured untested builds were put up? Theres no history that I can find.  (Not a fifty five 04:27, 4 September 2006 (CDT))
 * &mdash; Skuld 04:30, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Gotcha :)Tho you did make a mistake, I've been looking through the histroy and found critical blade to be up for weeks. I'm putting mine back up. (Not a fifty five 04:35, 4 September 2006 (CDT))

Rapta changed the tested side not untested. >.<

Currently Testing the Viability of…
Hey, could you just take a glance at the above named section on my page and just give me a quick review on my discussion page for any that look interesting? I got Rapta to do a quick glance over, but I think that you understand the idea of comments and suggestions a bit better (no offence Rapta). Just let me know what you think, I know they need work which is why they aren't posted builds yet. Thanks in advance.--Azroth 01:20, 5 September 2006 (CDT) P.S.--I feel your pain as far as "testing" is concerned. My Critical Flash build got some feedback of its problems, but no suggestions on how to fix them before it got nixed. I know that the no suggestions part sucks, but maybe if you, I, and others began devoting time to testing builds instead of just creating them then there would be more comments than judgments. Just saying =)

The Frozen Feet review is saddening, but perhaps you're going about these issues the wrong way. Instead of giving up on the wiki, become more active in the testing process. Raise the standard of what is excepted “testing” and feedback by giving better ones that the current reviewers. Put the old ones to shame and maybe you can get a bit more of an accurate response out of them.--Azroth 01:22, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh, I have a tendency to er.. get dramatic on an issue to stir up conversation :). I rly didnt intend to quit the wiki, I'm in fact going to try to add at least 5 builds to each of the team builds considering how empty they are, and I try and test as many builds as I can, considering my guild isnt rdy for gvg yet (sorry gvg builds, you get somebody else to do you), and I'm getting bored. (Not a fifty five 02:36, 5 September 2006 (CDT))
 * Okay I looked at them and the first and second ones shows a bit of promise IMO:) The other two are interesting but impractical. (Not a fifty five 03:07, 5 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Thanks a lot for the first review. Would you be willing to give it anothr go?  I changed several builds to conform to your and other suggestions, and added 2 new builds which I believe show a lot of promise.  Thank in advance.--Azroth 00:07, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Messing with build votes...
Do not fool around with build votes to make a points. I know Skuld already told you this, but you seemed to brush off the criticism non-chalantly. I am afraid you'll have to do better than that. A user who sabotages the content of the wiki to make a point is not a user who benefits the wiki, no matter how knowledgeable or clever they may be. You are getting a warning because you're a registered user with proven contributions. Please be more responsible. Thank you. --Karlos 03:41, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I accept your warning but not your reasoning. I did no sabotage at all, I acted no differently from any of my fellow testers, I made a clean and valid vote and condemned a build that had two unopposed votes against it.  And I am brushing this off nonchalantly.  It did make a point and people are discussing it and something is happening after months of nothing.   So I dont accept your reasoning but do accept the reasoning of all those guildwiki people who in game who thanked me for getting this matter settles for once.  Thank You(Not a fifty five 03:46, 5 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Excuse me? What exactly have you done apart from vandalise the wiki and make Sadam Hussain jokes? Why would anyone want to thank you? &mdash; Skuld 03:57, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * a) there was no vandalization. b) The dude brought up murder as an example, I felt like taking the matter lightly rather than getting all weird.  Skuld please stop it, you're months and months and months of vandalizing builds without testing them far outweighs anything I could dream of doing to damage the wiki.  (Not a fifty five 04:02, 5 September 2006 (CDT))


 * However, your issue lies with me, not Skuld. And you have failed to show any kind of remorse or understanding for the true meaning and consequences of your actions. I think you are both overestimating the perceived attention your action brought to the issue as well as the underestimating the value of civilized debate. I am not satisfied that you: a) regret what you did or b) plan on not doing it again. As such I will carry out the basic penalty for vandalism. I am banning you for 3 days. --Karlos 04:10, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

The issue of voting on builds has been discussed on the wiki almost continously, especially in the last few days before you messed with these builds. But even if there had been no discussion, disrupting the wiki and behaving like an ass towards other people can not be justified (that you choose random uninvolved authors makes it even worse). Your actions made a build author contact an administrater to complain about you, that alone should show you the quality of your actions. --Xeeron 05:04, 5 September 2006 (CDT)