User talk:Jagre/archive 2

Questions
Is there a way to make a new tab on my user page, like say "builds" (next to user page and discussion) or anything?

What is going to happen after the "build wipe" will the builds link still be in the main page? how will new builds be added, or will that be impossible after that?
 * I hope my attempt to respond to your questions will not be deleted as quickly as all my other comments :). Ok, as far as I know, you cannot create another tab.  As to the build wipe, the best way to learn more is to become proactive.  I would suggest reading through the talk pages for NOB and PNB.  Hopefully that will answer your question and will also get you more informed and involved with the question of policy than any simple answer I could give you.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:36, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Is there any way we could delete/move/archive the discussion page of the Jaguar Sword build?
 * For reasons that the discussion page is ugly as all hell and the build has changed to reflect the constructive criticism in the discussion pages (IE now has 590 health, 47 energy (has not changed) and 5 soul reaping to give some more energy management purposes).
 * Please, someone? If not I would just as soon move it to the stubs section just to avoid the discussion page being seen by any new people.  Jagre 23:43, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ok, here is how to archive a talk page. However, as a disclaimer, archiving/moving/deleting a talk page will not undo the fact that the build is unfavored, nothing short of three more favored than unfavored votes or a major skill change can change the fact that your build is unfavored.  However, since the discussion page is kind of messed up, here is what you do.  You create a new link called build talk:N/W Jaguar Sword, melee-mancer anti/Archive 1 .  Than you paste all of the current discussion page into that link, delete what is currently on the page, and then add the archive link at the top of the discussion page.  For an example of this, look at my user talk page and see how I archived old versions of it.  Hope that helps.  By the way, I removed your comment about Jinkas' comment on my user talk page, as you said on my poll, think of it as karma :).  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:47, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * thanks you were very helpful :) Jagre 00:13, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Discussion
Since my build was voted unfavored, should I now hold all other builds to that same standard? That they must be better than mine to get a vote of favored from me? Jagre 06:00, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, your build was horrible, so therefore, you should hold builds to a much much higher standard than yours. --Theonemephisto 16:22, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * that would force me to vote even more than half of the builds in "tested" as unfavored. Jagre 21:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Request
Here-in lies a request, provided by following (GW:NPA)policy,


 * "Removal of text

Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is much less of a concern than removing comments from other pages in GuildWiki. For text elsewhere, where such text is directed against you, removal requests should be directed to an admin to determine if the comments should remain, be archived, or be deleted. However, deletion should be rare, limited to situations where the comments pose an ongoing threat to a user such as revealing personal information in the attack."


 * for possibility of agreement that there are some personal attacks against me in the sections Build talk:N/W Jaguar Sword, melee-mancer anti and Talk:Meleemancer guide.
 * My proof of this lies here so far by the fact that much of the same topics of discussion have been brought, and are more appropriate to my own page. More specifically there is much discussion of user attitude, user style, and specific unintentional harmful actions of users, most of which is in no way related to the page where the discussion takes place.

notice: i am considering moving the jaguar sword build to stubs page for reason that the discussion page is an embarrassment to me and likely the other members of the wiki society.

Deletions and Deletions.
Hi. Since nobody seems to point it out explicitly and since you seem to have a problem distinguishing it on your own (you're new, nothing's wrong with that) I would like to make it clear when removal of text is okay and when it's not...

The sentence you bolded on Gem's talk page, the one that starts "deletion should be rare..." is meant for discussion pages. This includes the discussion pages for main articles and other users' Talk pages. Whatever goes into a discussion page stays there except for archival and the rare cases pointed out by that bolded sentence.

This policy does not apply to your own Talk page, but removing/modifying comments by yourself and other users in your Talk page is considered extremely tasteless. If you changed your mind about what you said, you should strike it like this. (Go into edit mode to see how it's done.)

The above cases do not apply to main article pages. The bold sentence below every edit page ("If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.") makes that clear. Somebody's removal of text from articles (unless it's vandalism) is not against any policy.

To sum up:


 * You do not delete/edit comments in talk pages. Ever.
 * You can blank your own talk page, but it's frowned upon. However...
 * You do not edit somebody's comments even on your own talk page to distort their meaning. Ever.


 * You can delete/edit whatever's on an actual article. If your change is beneficial, it's accepted. If not, it's reverted.

Peace.--Ishmaeel 22:33, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I like having clean user page. Jagre 23:01, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Of course you do. Here's another tip to help you keep yours clean: Wiki is not a forum and wikians have different customs and expectations. One of them is that the discussions flow top-down. Replies are expected to go at bottom. I hope you will not mind that I moved your reply below my comment. Even though you did not actually edit my comment, your insertion shifted the context of the discussion, which I could perceive as distortion of what I said. Hope that helps.--Ishmaeel 23:15, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * what you said was true, but it is also a public page, and as such, it's customs are subject to change as people come and go. on my page, i would assume that my customs are forthright.  However that being said, I respect your right to question that and edit things as you see fit.   Thankx for the info.  Jagre 23:30, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Conversation with "Brian"
No, once a build is in unfavored, it is always a violation of GW:1RV to move it to untested except in two cases. Either, there can be a revote ONLY if the build is significantly changed which I believe means at least 3 skills changed. The ONLY other way to have a page moved is if the net favored votes = +3 i.e. there are three more favored votes than unfavored. Otherwise, PLEASE do not move your build back to untested. Thank you. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 00:20, 21 March 2007 (CDT)


 * &QUOT "You can move it back to untested if you like, but I seriously doubt anyone's opinion will have changed... you still have no energy management, low armor, etc. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)" Jagre 00:27, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * That was before I understood the situation to be honest. I assumed you had changed the build enough for a revote, what I meant was that in looking at the current skills, most of the problems that the first voters had still remained.  I apologize for having misled you.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 00:29, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think I might wait until I post my new build and then say something "it now has 2 forms of energy management, an average 66 armor per piece, and 100 more hit points." And because no one really had a problem with the skills...oh wait, they did.  But most of the problems were with things unrelated to the skill bar - and thus the major changes that have occured to the build were not directed at the skills, to reflect the "major (stated) 'problems'" of the build. Jagre 00:33, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

As to your new build, people don't hate you, they just didn't like your old build and they didn't like your response to your first build (by which I mean the various policy violations). It isn't a personal thing and I would doubt that anyone would unfavor your new build just because you posted it. However, I would caution you before posting, that if this build isn't considered good, it will be unfavored, and it will be edited mercilessly, but it isn't a reflection on you. But, if you aren't ready to see your build ripped apart by people who didn't test or whatever, I would strongly advise that you didn't post it. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 00:25, 21 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Well I have learned that to respond to negative things only feeds the fire. Jagre 00:27, 21 March 2007 (CDT)