User talk:Jinkas8539

Delete/ban
I apologize if I've been too cavalier in my use of delete/ban templates this afternoon. If I'm wrong in using them, please direct me to some correct instruction. Jinkas 15:43, 9 December 2006 (CST)
 * They were fine. Thanks for reverting the vandalism.  --Fyren 16:02, 9 December 2006 (CST)

Just move misnamed builds in the future. --Fyren 08:39, 12 December 2006 (CST)
 * Roger that. Jinkas 11:30, 12 December 2006 (CST)

heh, -_-
someone really does not want the world to know about the gosu title. -- Xeon 02:38, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, I just had an in-game chat with Brother Lorden who asked me if I was able to lock the page. According to him, "they keep editing it b/c they don't want people to know, so they can get 'attention'" Jinkas 02:40, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Bloody kids -_- -- Xeon 02:47, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Hex Duration on Bosses
Actually, half hex duration is only true for Nightfall and Prophecies bosses, but you were right for removing it. =) &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 19:15, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * I had no idea! Looks like one dev team is a fan of half hex and the other isn't. :-)  Thanks for letting me know. Jinkas 19:17, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Meteor Stormers
Did you notice the major changes from the 1st version to the most recent? These are just some. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mosrael The Waker (contribs) 19:08, 14 March 2007.
 * I've given every player a KD skill
 * I added healers
 * I gave the Warder a KD elite
 * I completely revamped the strategy
 * I explained the mechanics of it a lot more

In reply to your reply No one liked my 7 hp invulnerimonk either, so I doubt they will like any other builds I come up with, even though the invulnerimonk had (the 1st time i played it) about a 90% success rate. This was the first time i had ever done any invincimonking and I got 90% success. People still didn't like it. They just don't think outside the box and give unfavoured to things they dont understand.--Mosrael The Waker 14:28, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

You can't take things personally. People aren't voting against your build because they don't like you, just because they don't believe in the build. Good build authors are also good readers of the metagame; they know what skills are popular and which combos are especially synergistic. It isn't easy to come up with a good build that the community will accept. Jinkas 14:31, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

What does synergistic mean? Also, I think my problem is that that the build is so complex ppl take one look and just go for the obvious.--Mosrael The Waker 14:37, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Random
You have 6 gladiator points and have no experience whatsoever using a build similar to The Jaguar Sword melee-mancer. I ask that you please delete your vote and negative, and un-warranted comments about the build from the said page, and refrain from doing so in the future unless you have adequate experience to do so (which I would consider to be at least 10 attempted RA sessions with a similar build). Jagre 20:03, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

I do not appreciate you accusing me of things either man, much less reporting me multiple times for something I did accidentally.

Look, man. What happened to my build was wrong. You, along with everyone else who voted, did not give it the chance it is meant to get. It says that you should only vote if you have experience with it or a similar build, and it was up for less than five minutes. You have little to no experience in RA, and little if any with anti-melee shutdown. Am i correct?

Personally I do not believe you had a right to vote on it, and I think any sane person would agree with me.

Furthermore, I do not want my build's page to be a place for harrassments, bickering, or general retarded flames, which is has become as result of your actions and those of several other people (and i did too). I forgive you for this, and I would appreciate any constructive feedback you have about the build, but if you just want to shutdown the build and be generally rude and offensive about what I kindly tried to share with the Wiki community, I ask that you do so on my own page, or elsewhere. Jagre 21:50, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I reported you once, for violation of GW:1RV, which can easily be verified by simply looking in the page history. I could have and should have (but didn't) report you for:
 * erasing votes (at least three times)
 * erasing user comments, and
 * borderline personal attacks against myself.
 * I would appreciate if you would point out to me where it says to vote only if I have experience with the build or with a similar build. You are correct, I have little experience in RA because I prefer to stick to the more organized and advanced forms of PvP such as GvG, HA, and HvH.  Every user is responsible for his or her own posts; you can't place the blame on me for things that others have said.  Please point out one single place where I was rude or offensive; all I did was point out four things that I saw that were wrong with the build and, for those reasons, gave the build my unfavored vote.


 * The build in question has been voted unfavored. It would be my advice that, rather than continue to snap at those who are posting their thoughts about the build, you instead focus your energy on perhaps creating a different build that might work a little better. Jinkas 22:03, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Some of the above statements are exaggerated, and I kindly ask understanding for the past actions I took. Jagre 03:36, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Once again, I do appreciate feedback, as long as the user minimizes the harm they do to the reputation of the unique build I am sharing and have spent a long time developing. Jagre 21:50, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The build is unfavored. That's its reputation. Jinkas 22:03, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Whatever man, that's not really true, and you know I didn't know. I read a lot of the policy and stuff, but just didn't know.

OK?

I would appreciate it if you would kindly look at the updated version of the J page and possibly re-evaluate your vote.

I did not participate in revert wars. Jagre 00:02, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

ATTN:Jagre: QQ, GW:VETTING, we don't HAVE to test it. &mdash;Blastedt 22:00, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * i was just checking out this persons talk page and came along this section, you are right, you do not need to test it, but, many builds can look bad, or seem bad, but if you actually test it, they are rather good, so every person should test every build, and i think that should be the new rule of Guild Wiki, so that there arnt as many unfavoured votes --[[Image:Quick Shot.jpg|19px|Bowman]]  Bowman  [[Image:Quick Shot.jpg|19px|talk:Bowman]] 00:11, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The rules are what the rules are, and that was what I was explaining to this user. Those of us who have been playing Guild Wars for a long time are familiar with the way most skills work together, and testing every build would be very impractical. Jinkas 00:16, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

any1 can do that, just come here and read wtf it does, but testing it means more, things dont always seem like what they look like, especially in builds. --  Bowman  03:32, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Although i do agree with you, i tested Jagre's build, didnt work very well as others, but still, lot of builds get shutdown becauase people dont want to test it

action and consequences
Jinkas, please refrain from alluding to warnings, reporting, etc. when directing your comments towards me. It only leads to more conflict.

Although I am not making any commands, I would like to say that I would appreciate if you simply did not respond to my comments whatsoever any more, because I find them slightly derogatory in tone and often include threats, continuous allusions to harmful action, and generally inaccurate, illogical assumptions, all of which lead to nothing more than conflict between us.

Jagre 03:20, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * So you want him to stop replying to your comments? Why don't you stop directing comments towards him? Seriously, you two need to leave each other alone for a little while. Maybe a wiki restraining order is warranted? ;-) Just fooling around, but you both should should give it a lil while before talking to each other again. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Jinkas has already implied in a comment he made on my user talk that he is going to let remove himself from the conflict for the time being and let the Admins decide how to resolve the situation. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)

I will do the same. Jagre 03:41, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

just so you know
a couple things.

1) just wanted you to know that I'm sorry for all my previous harmful actions, please know i did not mean any harm but myself attribute it to misunderstanding. I'm sorry.

2) i do not think admonishing anyone is going to solve anything.

Thanks.

Jagre 04:17, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

updates to Build:N/Me Spiteful Haste, at least to the discussion page
I posted a new version of the build in the discussion page that you might like.

it fixes just about everything that was wrong with it - gives it potential to not get interupted and gave it direct dmg. of course for every upside there is a downside and i doubt i would be able to do anything about it now. the downside is that is has less energy management and the curses don't do as much damage any more - but who cares right? was overkill anyways, plus, half the time it just shuts down and doesn't kill, right? but on the upside - can avoid being interupted for 4 seconds - enough time to get off a spell, and has direct damage (or at least DOT) - so the only problem one might see now with it is energy management hopefully. 69.19.167.105 08:24, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Fully understand the vetting procedure
Sure, it says that it was vetted and was unapproved. But the protocol specifies that if changes are made to it, then it can be brought back as untested. Read carefully, please. The old votes are still shown, but the build deserves another chance, as it was unfairly vetted without comments over a week ago, and then instantly tossed into disapproved within 6 hours.
 * Please sign comments that you leave on my talk page. And AFAIK you need to change at least 3 skills on a build for it to qualify for a revote.  So far I have only seen two changed since the build was unfavored. Jinkas 01:40, 1 April 2007 (CDT)