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)

Can we cut the crap now?
I think everyone can say this matter has gotten a little out of hand. My whole warning/banning should rly have been left to skuld, karlos, the person who made the ebond build and myself. The only reason this has been getting everyone talking is that I said I would do this before I did it, and that I disagreed with two admins, which is simple free speech. Oh and I said I had no remorse of my actions, thats not actually true. I said I did not agree about the vandalism part, and the "boasting about it" karlos put in my block message was simply about how I declared I couldn't give a *&%% what karlos thought about giving me a warning, cause it wasn't vandalism!!! In any case I am sending an apology to the creator of the ebond build, once I find his name. While I did absolutely nothing wrong, nothing deserving a ban or even a warning I think, what I did was in spite of some people and didn't give the author a good reason for condemning his build. I was going to condemn it  anyways  but the reason I was going to put down I replaced with total gibberish, mocking other people. I should have told him beforehand what my real vote would have said, which I will do very soon.

Anyways, that aside, this mess is rly just a bunch of "he did it!, no SHE did it!, No HE DID IT!!!!" etc. I HAVE been acting liek an ass to several people but thats merely in self defense, about 20 people were swarming me with crap saying how what I did was horrible, even tho several other people did exactly the same thing as I have. I can give examples if you really like of people putting crap votes (one person wrote "..." (signature), another wrote"-" (signature)), effectively putting them up for risk of banning, but I'm tired of this crap like I said. Its done and over with. Except for me and karlos, I am still pissed off at him. Please do not step in the way when I continue arguing with him unless you're an admin. Not sure if I' going to do that anyways, because his attitude seems to be "hey you dont agree with me! BAN!"(Not a fifty five 10:22, 8 September 2006 (CDT))
 * You really want to persue this?.. &mdash; Skuld 10:23, 8 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Skuld reread it. I dont mean to be mean... but I said exactly the opposite.  I'm dropping it (Not a fifty five 10:25, 8 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I have to admit, I don't really know you or know much about you. My interest in this whole issue is one of precedent. You posted that you knowingly sabotaged votes and sunk builds, that you saw nothing wrong with that and that it was somehow necessary or good for the wiki. We might agree to disagree on this matter of whether your rebelious actions were anarchy or heroism, but I will not, under any circumstances allow sabotaging of pages to be an acceptable form of debate and making a point in this wiki. I hardly even know you, but the precedent itself was what concerned me. I hope I have made it VERY clear to you and anyone else seeing this that such a practice, no matter the altruistic goals and noble interpretations will NEVER be accepted. It is far more important for me that this message comes across (I felt it completely flew over your head the first time I said it) than that you practice your first amendment rights. This is not a forum, this is a wiki. I hope this is blunt and clear enough. If you feel this stand is not right for an admin to take, feel free to lodge a complain with Tanaric. But there is no personal side to this, like I said, I really know nothing about you even as a wiki user. --Karlos 19:42, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

Yeah, 55 I've got nothing agains you, I owe you a lot for all your feedback on my page and all, and I believe that the result that (I think) you're fighting for is a good one, but the way you went about making your point was just wrong. Sorry if you dont agree, but there are better ways to make a point than to strike out at and hurt people who have nothing to do with the problem. Thats all I've got to say; please dont take it personally as I dont mean this as an offence at all, and I still hope for your help in the future with my builds, I just feel that you tried to (speaking figurativly of course) abolish the death penalty by going on a killing spree.--Azroth 20:16, 9 September 2006 (CDT)


 * pffft we went over this, its about killing saddam hussein in the logic example someone provided >.< (Not a fifty five 20:36, 9 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Anyways, I did write an apology to the one build that I had not returned to normal status on accident. However, the banning itself I do not accept was a right thing to do for these reasons:


 * There was no "sabotage" or "vandalism" or any evil term you want to use. I simply made a vote on a build using a silly comment like others would have rather than the comment I had intended to put down at first.  I should have given the intended comment to the author before doing this and that is all I believe to have done wrong.


 * I'm not the only one to have believed that this ban was inappropriate, as you will find out if you look into the matter more


 * The only admin that should have had a right to do this was Skuld, who knew more of the matter than you did. You knew this and, seeing that skuld had not banned me, thought he was acting incorrectly as an admin or something?


 * You worded that you gave me a warning but you really had not. All I did was disagree with how you in particular dealt with the problem, not all the admins, and I was banned for that reason.  That is simply a matter of your pride, not your thoughts.


 * The act of "vandalism" has been done by many others. Since you continue to see it as wrong I quote several people, with their names included.  "-" A comment made by Skuld on a build that got unfavored (more coming as I check through) btw due to your persistence Karlos I'm calling for a temp ban of Skuld for this, sorry but blame karlos for it.


 * Your actions were way too hasty for a ban after warning, 1 minute, which has shown your lack of research of the problem

I've called for the crap to end but it continues, as I quote every person to have made 0 or complete gibberish comments in builds, the reason I was banned. Thank our admin here ^^(Not a fifty five 20:36, 9 September 2006 (CDT))

Votes that were made with 0 or gibberish comments like "lol", the reason I was banned:

(Note all of these have been checked to see if they wrote something in discusiion to go ith the vote. they didnt.  Also not we are still on "A" of Unfavored builds (there should be a few hundred more to be listed, suggesting month long bans for some people)

(no real comment, insult as well, falling hammr)
 * — Skuld 10:05, 20 August 2006 (CDT) (0 reason) in "a/e Stinging Mist build"
 * — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:59, 31 July 2006 (CDT) (0comment, casters bane build)
 * — Shady 21.55 1 august 2006  (0 comment, casters bane build)
 * Impracticle — Skuld 10:31, 20 August 2006 (CDT) (says nothing, condition outbreak build)
 * Sir On The Edge (just his name, not even sigm black steel build)
 * --Rapta 21:30, 10 July 2006 (CDT) (Crippling shadow)
 * Bad build. --67.165.22.236 22:15, 22 July 2006 (CDT) (criplling shadow)
 * — Skuld 06:41, 26 August 2006 (CDT) (Displacement of Purity)
 * ...Shady 22.07 1 august 2006 (Holy stonesoul)
 * Getting rid of this... — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:45, 10 August 2006 (CDT) (Palm mender)
 * — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:31, 27 July 2006 (CDT) (Spirit-assin)
 * — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:47, 19 July 2006 (CDT) (Siphon Vampire)
 * ... — Rapta (talk|contribs) 01:59, 26 July 2006 (CDT) (Support sin)
 * Useless. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 00:03, 1 August 2006 (CDT) (no real comment, insult as well, anti-melee assasin)
 * — Skuld 07:01, 24 August 2006 (CDT) (critical flash)
 * Horrible... — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:44, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
 * — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:37, 27 July 2006 (CDT) (Master assasin)
 * — Skuld 04:38, 21 August 2006 (CDT) (Steel Lotus)
 * — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:42, 19 August 2006 (CDT) (the critical palm
 * 71.228.190.23 19:53, 28 August 2006 (CDT) (the critical palm)

Wow I didnt expect there to be this many... Anyways all this is only from CATEGORY "A" OF UNFAVORED BUILDS. A good estimate would be 200 total.

I do not believe they should be banned really, but the only difference between these and mine is that the build user did not message an admin. That's it.

So I suggest this instead. All those involved in the argument of my actions (skuld, xeeron, karlos, etc) save their asses by owing me an apology. (Not a fifty five 21:23, 9 September 2006 (CDT))

Can we call a truce here?
Ok, as the events leading up to this point have yielded no positive results, and only negative ones (55 getting banned, a verbal war between an admin and a member, and several build creators getting there feelings hurt), I'd like to try and call a truce here. First off, 55, it seems that what you're fighting for is noble. We all want better feedback and more suggestions on builds, as well as a guarantee that the builds are actually being tested instead of just being looked at. That said, and choice of terms for your actions aside, what you did to those builds, even if you did reverse them afterwards, was wrong. Karlos, yes, you did give a warning, but you then banned 55 30min later. I can understand your outrage at the way 55 went about addressing the testing/glancing issue, and what he did is (or at least should be) against wiki policy, but as there was also another admin involved in the debate, and the debate was still going, your actions seem a bit hasty.

So with all that out of the way, might I propose a compromise? 55, promise to never do this again, and just let this war between you, Karlos, and the build testers die. Karlos, seeing as this whole event came about as the newest and most extreme argument in a long standing debate, and you being an admin have more power here than I or 55; set up a page linked to the builds page where a final official debate and vote on the issue of proper vetting of builds can be held. The results of this vote should be taken into account and made wiki policy if possible. Also, if necessary, try to establish a set group of testers on the wiki which are held to a higher standard than the rest, and are required to put x many hours into testing each build and leave comments and suggestions along with their votes. Have, votes from these members weigh heavier when trying to decide if a build should go tested or unfavored, and set up a way for these members to be held accountable for their votes and have consequences (warnings, banning, ect.) for if they have cast a vote which brings into question whether or not they have actually tested the build. Of course joining this group would be voluntary. Are these terms acceptable to all parties involved? Its time to put this behind us, and get this issue settled once and for all so that there won’t ever be a repeat of the events leading up to this proposal. I hope to find you both in agreeable moods when you read this so that we can quickly and efficiently remedy this problem.--Azroth 21:36, 9 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Cool :) I still think the public apologees from all the public insulters would be rather fitting tho :S (Not a fifty five 21:50, 9 September 2006 (CDT))