User talk:Skuld14148

new +

Hi, I still dont understand, so I guess can you please tell me were to find such information of when to sign or not information. Thank You. Because I dont know what are talk pages.

User:88.110.189.168
Hey Skuld.

You blocked User:88.110.189.168 this weekend. I checked my email this morning and found about 30 password requests from that IP address, dated Sep 24. I'm just curious: did any other admins/users get the same thing? &mdash;Tanaric 09:26, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Not me. --Karlos 09:33, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Not I. He seemed to have picked you, seen his list? ;) &mdash; Skuld 09:42, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Good to know. I've never been specifically targetted by a vandal before! &mdash;Tanaric 16:04, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * * sigh* You'll always remember your first time, Tanaric.  :P  --Rainith 16:16, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * You must be the lucky one; I wasn't contacted either. He must've gotten your name from the "Contact an admin" link on the left. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

Hey finally
Just saying Hi as we finally meet in game ^_^ --Woonack 11:01, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * /wave &mdash; Skuld 11:07, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

Attention Please.

 * poke*-Onlyashadow 14:38, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Poking? Is that the best you can do? d; Boring! &mdash; Skuld 14:43, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

Whee
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.189.215.84. I've been ignoring the formatting of acquisition besides removing "to be added." --Fyren 02:58, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, ok. I suggested this at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills, never got any further tho &mdash; Skuld 03:38, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Vote on GuildWiki talk:Builds
Since you are one of the most active build testers, I was hoping for a contribution of you there. Maybe you'll find the time =) --Xeeron 04:24, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Wow, thats a lot of text! I've put in a vote and read it :) &mdash; Skuld 04:51, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I've just finished printing GuildWiki talk:Builds, although I've read lots of bits and pieces of it over time I haven't followed the lastest developments (in the last couple of days) and hence haven't voted. So I'm now holding 37 pages of discussion, it was either this or start reading The Hobbit although I think The Hobbit would be less weighty! I'll try to get through it in the next hour or so, hopefully I won't miss the voting deadline. --Xasxas256 00:55, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Deleting builds without even voting?
Why? --Karlos 09:02, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * If its very similar, the 2 pages get merged together and 1 gets rid of, the "Deathly MM" had 1 difference: deathly swarm which is listed as a varient at N/Mo_Minion_Master &mdash; Skuld 09:05, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, but the guy was just working on it and you took it from under his feet. Leave him a note on his talk page or something. Or just slap a delete tag on it and then he'll get the picture. --Karlos 06:16, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Immediate Deletion
I'm opposed to this, even though I flagged the articles for deletion, this shouldn't be done for another two weeks as per the policy. - Greven 13:01, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I missed that, sorry Greven &mdash; Skuld 13:02, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I hadn't noticed that in the policy. I think that anything with a "Delete" tag shouldn't need to wait two weeks.  We may want a new tag for this time frame - something like a "delete warning" or "Build Delete".  Then after the two weeks, it can be changed to "delete" to flag it for the admin as ready.
 * Hmmm, I probably should've posted this in the policy's talk page .... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:05, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Or a Speedy deletion tag to make things go faster for articles which are obvious duplicates or the such. [[Image:Chuiu Me Icon.png]] (T/C) 13:14, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Builds is not a policy, just a draft. --Fyren 13:16, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * It was once a policy, now parts of it have been changed. There was discussion on alternate policies in the talk page, and while this did not reach any fruitful conclusion, objections to what are currently written in the policy need to be brought about in the talk page. - Greven 13:25, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * No, we never had a builds policy, just a "what we've been doing so far" for builds. That article is not even a month old.  --Fyren 13:28, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Meh, my mistake. - Greven 13:50, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Skuld (or another admin), can you please restore the ones deleted? - Greven 19:14, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Restored (I think I got all of them) and changed the delete tag to the abandoned one (I'm not saying that the abandoned tag is the way to go, but this will keep them out of Category:Candidates for deletion, I'll leave what to do with all the builds to others). --Rainith 20:52, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Your CSS
For the ID on template:C3, I would suggest using a more generic ID such as "campaign notice" or "pre-campaign notice". That way, the same ID can be used for each consecutive campaign and you won't need to modify your CSS each time to accomodate the new ones. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:56, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


 * If he made it more generic then he should use the class attribute and not the ID attribute. I think "nightfall-notice" is a perfectly suitable ID, but he could use a class of "campaign-notice" or "notice" instead. Of course, I'm being a little pedantic here :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:09, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Good point, a class would be the better choice for a more generic name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:12, 29 September 2006 (CDT)