User talk:Azroth/Archive

Completley Random
Sup. I'm new here, so any advice or pointers are welcome, but please be gentle. Thx.Azroth 00:50, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Welcome to the wiki!

&mdash; Galil  21:29, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Pointers:
 * Community Portal
 * Style and formatting
 * GW:YOU
 * GW:ULC
 * Advices:
 * Follow guidelines.
 * sign your comments.
 * Don't let the wiki disturb your eating or sleeping habits.
 * People see your messages a whole lot easier if you put them on your userpage instead of talk, since this is where we put messages to you. ;)


 * Thanks a lot for the advice :) I love your user page. Would you mind if I used it as a template for my own?Thx again--Azroth 21:48, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * No problem. Although another advice is, always reply at the same spot you got the message. ;) About my page though, I'm terribly sorry but it took me so horribly long to do, and I like the outcome alot. You may of course use something similar, but I'd prefer if you didn't use the same layout. :( &mdash; Galil  21:58, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, thanks anyway. I can relate. I guess I'll just ask around for another template. Shame though, yours is realy nice.--Azroth 22:06, 23 August 2006 (CDT) P.S.-I'll post this in both locations.  Thx for all the advice.

Help! In Dire Straits
Hey, if anyone reads this, please lend me some help with my [A/W Critical Flash] build. The build got 2 unfavored votes before there was ever any discussion, which leads me to wonder if it was really tested. If anyone gets a chance could you please test it and give me some real feedback, and please don’t give it a third unfavored vote or delete it without giving me a chance to fix/defend it? If you like it, please give it a favorable vote. Thanks a lot.--Azroth 19:14, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

WTF!! This has to be a record. My build got moved to unfavored with almost no discussion in 2 days!! I mean, there were only 3 posts that weren't mine, 1 commenting on their own skill set up, and 2 saying it looked good! I looked around the unfavored section for a while and found builds with contradictions in them that lasted longer and got more discussion. And even on ones with skills that COULDN'T be used or more than 200 attribute points used, the builds got more of a reason for the unfavored votes than mine. Can anyone help me out here?--Azroth 20:46, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * most of the comments were on similarity to existing articles, not the quality of your build. uniqueness and quality are different questions. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 23:23, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry, I was kind of in a crappy mood when I wrote that last one and was in a demi-rant. So I guess its time to clarify.  what I meant was that it was annoying to get placed into the unfavored section so fast, because it seemed that people just LOOKED at the build and voted it down because it LOOKED like the [A/W Critical Mastery|Critical Mastery] build, where as (in my opinion) it PLAYS very differently (or at least as differently as a melee build can from another melee build) from the Crit. Mas. build.  That was what I meant, but I guess it never came out in my rant.--Azroth 00:44, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * With five out of eight key skills identical, most people will assume that they builds operate in the same manner. They have the same idea centered around hitting with criticals to keep up Critical Defenses. In that sense, they do play similar enough that it would be better to place your ideas in the varients of the existing build rather than create a new build. I honestly don't see how they play as differently as you suggest, as you combined the lead and offhand into GPS, switched a defensive skill for another ("Watch Yourself" to Flashing Blades) and filled in the free spot with a self heal. However, all those skills are superfulous to the key idea of the build, and thus you see the results with unfavored votes. I'm not trying to critisise you as much as help you recognize why you are getting unfavored votes. It happens. One of my favorite RA builds (the E/W Hammer Spike) was thrown into the unfavored bin. I felt it was fun and worked well enough, but others didn't agree. Just be ready to accept that it will happen as you open your build up to the public. --Thervold 12:31, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Ah, I see what you're saying. Ok, thanks a lot.  When put that way I can see where people are coming from when they say the two are similar.  I just wish that someone could have given me an indepth explanation like this earlier and saved me all the confusion.  thanks again.--Azroth 13:21, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Seems Odd
Does anyone else think its odd that Anet never changed the Monster Skill Fingers of Chaos so that it affected Assassins and Ritualists? I mean, it has horrible affects for other profs, so why not include the new ones?Azroth 23:24, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * programmer laziness. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 00:11, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * yeah, I guess so. lol.Azroth 00:25, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Or even Mesmers for that matter. --Theeth (talk)   19:58, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Or maybe a because a hand only has 5 fingers? --Crazytreeboy 20:16, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * You may have something there Crazy, but I still think laziness was atleast half of the equation.--Azroth 20:27, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Or because it's a Prophecies-only area? :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 11:58, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * You're probably right, but it just seems odd that they didnt update the effect for the Dragon Festival.--Azroth 12:07, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * It's because they like Assasins, Mesmers, and Ritualists more! >^_^< -[[Image:Vulpes_Foxnik.png]]Vulpes Foxnik 22:07, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

Archive
I moved your talk archive into your user space and updated the link at the top of this page. --Fyren 01:05, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks a lot :)--Azroth 18:03, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Incorrectly unfavoured builds (section breaker)
This is a subsection of GuildWiki talk:Requests for arbitration/Not a fifty five vs Karlos. I'm keeping a copy of it to serve as a reference of the opinions I expressed on this page should it ever be altered or deleted.--Azroth 00:01, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Can you hold off moving them until we have some concensus, this is a contentious issue, if you're going to change 100 pages perhaps some discussion first would be wise, isn't that the whole reason (a lack of discussion) you want to now move them back? --Xasxas256 22:54, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, well, when ya put it that way, sure. I just didn't realize so many builds had been unfavored for little to no reason.  All the examples I'd paid attention to had nonsense votes maybe, but not NO votes. Still, you're right about adding 200+ builds back into testing... --Crazytreeboy 22:59, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * STOP. As much as I agree with the fact that these builds got a raw deal, DO NOT MOVE THEM BACK.  If you do, they will get the same deal that they've gotten already, because between their voting down and right now, there have been no policy changes to the builds testing category which would ensure a new vote for them.  I agree that 55 had a good point, but the way he went about pointing it out, and the stance he took afterwards, angered people and caused them not to look at the point, but to argue with 55 instead.  What needs to be done now is to work harder to get the vetting policies changed,  while leaving these builds where thay are to maintain the integrity of this list.  If these were all added back into the untested category, all it would do is double the size of the category, forcing the testers to work even faster and spend less and less time on each build.  This wouldn't help these or any builds, so dont move them anywhere.  Policy changes must be made, or all these build will be back in untested tomarrow.--Azroth 23:07, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Well the policy has since changed to 3 votes o.O But yeah if policies changed, and they are soon since we have two ideasalready for a change, it'd be sad if they all went zoom somewhere after all that work. (Not a fifty five 23:12, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Don't worry, I haven't and ain't touching them. And you've an even better point to add to Xasxas(...'s?).  Fix the vetting process first, Then fix the unfavored builds.  The LAST thing I wanna do is make things any more messed up than they already are right now or cause trouble. I'll wait. --Crazytreeboy 23:18, 12 September 2006 (CDT) (Edit Conflict)


 * There has been a deep and pervasive injustice done to over a hundred build articles because of a flawed process. If you read GuildWiki talk:Builds, you will see plenty of support for this. The proponent of this flawed process (Xeeron) is currently not available for comment. One of the persons commonly accused of flippant voting (Rapta) is similarly absent. The other person (Skuld) is an admin who has the power to impose discretionary blocks if he feels that moving these builds back to testing is disruptive. Xasxas256 hasn't staked a position either way except to urge caution where it is unnecessary. Consensus already exists on this matter. There should be no voting on any of these builds moved back to testing until one of the proposed policy changes is implemented; this is why I am not using [Template:rate-a-build] on them. 66.90.73.113 23:14, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Look...Xeeron, Rapta, Skuld, and the other testers are not the enemy here (I'm not sure if this is what you're suggesting but I'm going on the assumption that you are). The testers are just working within the limits of the policy. They are fighting an up hill battle against an ever increasing untested category which demands that they vote on builds and move them as fast as possible less the untested category become so alarmingly huge that the builds section is completely abandoned as a lost cause. Without them constantly casting votes on builds, no one else would. If you one day logged on, and went to the untested category and found it too contain 1000 untested builds, would you be the one to begin testing them? How would you decide what builds to test? If you were able to test two builds a day, as five or ten more came in, would you keep testing or would you give up? Or would you take the third option and begin casting votes as fast as you could simply to easy the strain and try to clear out the untested section? It’s not the people that’s the problem here, it’s the system. So don’t just sit here on this page and talk about how the builds section gets tested too quickly and not enough attention is paid to each build. If you don’t like it, help them. Devote some of your time to testing builds, testing them the right way. You've all proved today that you have the time just by sitting here and watching the events on this page unfold. So now its time for you to stop watch, to stop talking, and to start acting. Now get your buts in gear and get to it. I'm not an admin, and I haven't been here for very long, but since when has it ever been the policy of this or any other group of people to see a problem and instead of trying to help out, to sit around and complain about it and hope that someone else will take care of it for you? Now go test some builds and fix the problem that you all helped to create. If you need me, you'll know where to find me.--Azroth 23:40, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

How do I...
How do I create an image to link to for my characters section?--Azroth 18:58, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Don't know if anyone answered, but you take a screenshot and upload the image to the wiki (using the upload file link near the bottom of the left navbar). You'd probably also want to convert the file into a JPG and maybe crop it before uploading.  --Fyren 00:07, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, thanks a lot. You were the first person to respond and I was starting to think that I'd never get any help with this.  Thanks again.--Azroth 00:15, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * If you have general questions, try asking on User_questions (a talk page for an article related to your question is even better, if there is such an article) instead of your talk page. More people will probably notice your question there. --Fyren 00:26, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Backup
There's no reason to keep a backup of a page. Every revision of a page is stored by the wiki. You can click the history tab to see them. So if someone vandalizes a page, you can go to the history, view a good copy, click edit, then save. --Fyren 00:05, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Man, I feel like an idiot, lol. Thanks for letting me know.  Could you please delete my backup page for me?  I would but I have no idea how.  Wow, I feel like such a n00b.  Thanks again.--Azroth 00:14, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Normal users can't delete articles (since it wipes out the history). Usually you put  in an article to flag it for deletion, but I'll go ahead and just delete it. --Fyren 00:26, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * lol, you deleted the talk page but not the main page. I flaged it for deletion though (thanks for the code) so it doesn't realy matter.--Azroth 14:26, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

Truce?
While I commend your efforts to forge a "truce" between me and 55, I was not aware that there is a war. He wants to paint this as some personal dispute, I do not know this person, I have never been involved with him in any discussion prior to that incident and I have only been laying down the law. You can cater to his theory that there is a personal war going on, but there really isn't. I saw a request for admin intervention on Tanaric's page and I decided to investigate. That is all there is to it. --Karlos 05:28, 10 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I understand that (believe me), but I think that at this point this has escalated to more that just a user getting punished for bad behavior by an admin. More and more people are getting involved in this, and taking shots at 55.  As a result this is becoming a war, not between u and him so much as between him and several other members of the wiki.  The truce isn’t so much for your benefit as it would be for his and the wiki's.  As it stands this continues to go on because people keep attacking him and he keeps fighting back.  But if he and you agreed to the truce, then he would be bound by its terms to not respond to any more of these comments about him, so this whole thing would just die and we could all get past this event.  Besides that however, if even one good policy change came out of an official page for this discussion it would benefit the wiki and would mean that something good had come out of this whole ordeal.  Would it be possible for you to comply to the terms of the truce, or am I assuming admins have more power here than they actually do?--Azroth 12:19, 10 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Again, I don't even understand how can there be a truce when there is no feud. So, he promises not to do that again and I do what? Give him a cookie? Put a medal icon on his user page? You are talking about making changes to the build vetting process. This is sweet and dandy, but any changes to the build veting process will be a result of those who care about it and are working on improving it (on Guildwiki talk:Builds and talk:Builds), not an overhaul by Karlos just to make 55 feel better. Do you understand why the terms of this truce are not even acceptable? On the one hand, one user "promises" to "behave" in a certain way... On the other, an admin just goes in and changes the build process. There are a LOT of people working on the build process and I am not chief among them (like Xeeron). I have no business stepping and changing it to your liking or to the terms of that truce. That would make a mockery of all the work they ever did and actually make his precedent of "vandalism for change" successful.
 * So, in conclusion, I appreciate your efforts to intervene, but there are a few points to think about as I think you should place your efforts elsewhere:
 * There is no war going on between me and 55. There was poor action and disciplinary/penal action. I welcome your input on my user talke page if you felt the disciplinary action was bad/ineffective/so forth. But your portrayal that it was personal only serves to undermine the value of the disciplinary action itself.
 * If 55 is having problems with others because he vandalized build pages (not because he got banned), then that is a result of his own edits that he will need to deal with. You are welcome to step in and ask for cooler heads and I hope your calls are heeded. However, I don't think my ban was what made people upset at him, judging by their edits. My involvemnt in this part would be to make sure no one steps out of line or assaults the other people's characters.
 * The basic concept of your truce is that I just go ahead and do certain things you are suggesting to the builds process as some sort of extending an olive branch. This is categorically rejected as I will not go about making changes to the process in the wiki to make a user feel better (about a ban I feel he deserved to begin with). Changes take place in the wiki because people championed them and made a case for them. Not as a consolation for hurt feelings.
 * Thank you. --Karlos 14:10, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Alright, I see your point, but I feel you slightly misinterpreted what I was suggesting. I never intended to make it sound like you should just go in and carve up the build section as "a consolation for hurt feelings". What I meant was that it seems like the discussions about the build vetting process seemed to be scattered across the wiki. I was merely suggesting that you (or anyone with the power to really) should try to consolidate all those discussions into one location so that everyone involved in this ongoing debate (about builds, not 55) could have one place to express their feelings about it and hear what everyone else has to say. If it looks like the only discussion on this issue is already consolidated to one page then I guess there is no need for this. My proposal was based on the assumption that all the scattered debates I stumbled across were still on going. The other half was only a suggestion, I tried to word it so that it wasn't mandatory, but only something to consider as it seemed that most of the complains that I've seen since I stumbled upon the wiki tended to be about the kind of votes that 55 seemed so pissed about.

I never meant for any of it to be you doing something for 55. My actual intention was that by consolidating the debates on vetting and the build process in general you could kill two birds with one stone. You said that "Changes take place in the wiki because people championed them and made a case for them." My only intention was that by consolidating the discussion, these people who have championed change can be better heard by the rest; and that by doing so 55 would have no reason to take any other extreme action. I do agree that what he did was the wrong way to go about making a point, and that you were within your rights to ban him, I was just merely proposing a solution to 55's problem that could benefit everyone. The reason I called it a truce between you and him was not because arguments were sprouting up about you banning him, but because it seemed that in the previous categories on 55's page, all arguments spawned off of 55 saying one thing, you replying, and then several people jumping in and taking sides. I didn't include you because banning him was the problem, I included you because it seemed that by the mere action of continuing to try and explain yourself to him, and put and end to the problem, the opposite was happening and more people were taking sides (all of them against 55 it would seem) and just causing this to spiral into a situation where he felt it was him against the world. All I was trying to do was find a way in which to end the escalation of an argument which never should have started (but 55 seems to be a little bull headed). That’s all. Sorry about the length of this but I felt I needed to clear this up a bit and better explain my intentions before you banned me for being uncooperative :P jk jk jk jk jk(nothing personal, I probably would have banned him too).--Azroth 15:04, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Anyway, if you are talking about me taking side, i didn't. I'm just thinking that 55 demand an apologies from the public/community is unreasonable. No one person insults him, we tried to explain to him but he/she never listen. whatever, im not going to involve in this debate anymore. -- Cwingnam2000 16:34, 10 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Probably for the best. As it stands I'm about 3 posts (assuming no headway is made) away from giving up here.--Azroth 16:38, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Hey, sorry, I should have added this here too. No more talk is rly needed, I've contacted tanaric on the matter and he'll decide. (Not a fifty five 16:46, 10 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Ok, just promise me that that no matter what Tanaric decides, you'll take it as the Final statement in this issue and not persue it any farther, no matter what. Ok?--Azroth 17:00, 10 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Ayup tho we're currently currently discussing it, the admins and I. They're pretty much saying they can ban me for picking my nose if they wanted, I'm not sure why they didnt tell me that before setting up an arbitration o.O.  Anyways mind if I move this to my page? It kinda clutters yours up >.< (Not a fifty five 14:03, 12 September 2006 (CDT))

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, another user's change covered up yours while I was checking my page so I didn't notice this one. As for your request, You can copy it to your page if you want, but I still want to keep it as well just as a reference (I've got an archive so I'll just put it there ina few days to save space). That ok?--Azroth 17:01, 12 September 2006 (CDT)