User talk:Not a fifty five

Archives: archive 1

What exactly is a "namespace"
I know its whenever theres a colon in a page title and that this is my user talk namespace, but thats it. Any special rules or uses for namespaces? (Not a fifty five 14:25, 12 September 2006 (CDT))
 * i've moved it to the correct namespace. --[[Image:Kitty1.jpg|24px|]] (Talk) (Cont) (Cool) [[Image:Soft2.jpg|24px|]] 14:33, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * :) (Not a fifty five 14:34, 12 September 2006 (CDT))

The namespaces are primarilly to help in organising articles. Hope that helps. Let me know if I misunderstood what you were asking. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:44, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * The Main namespace (no leading label or colon before the article name) is reserved for the core content - ie: articles about Guild Wars.
 * The User: namespace is reserved for articles created by or about the user, and can be used for experimentation - for example, all articles in my namespace begin with "User:Barek/". Good wiki-etiquette is to mark these for deletion once they are no longer used.
 * The Template: namespace is reserved for templates that can be used in any other namespace; although user-specific templates should also be maintained within the User: namespace.
 * The GuildWiki: namespace is reserved for articles related to the policies, guidelines, help information, generic sandbox, etc ... basically, the day-to-day structure behind what holds the wiki together.
 * The MediaWiki: namespace is reserved for entries specific to the MediaWiki software which is used to generate the wiki.
 * The Image: namespace is reserved for uploaded images.
 * The Category: namespace is reserved for categories that can be used to organise other articles accross the wiki.
 * The Help: namespace exists, but is not currently used much on GuildWiki, as those types of files can be found within the GuildWiki: namespace instead.
 * Also, each of the above namespaces have a related talk namespace, which can be used for discussion of the contents of the listed article. These namespaces are named Talk:, User talk:, Template talk:, GuildWiki talk:, etc.


 * Got it :)

more editing questions :(
how do I set a link to a section of a page rather than the page itself? Doing e.g. Talk:builds wont lead to that secontion just the title

o.O okay nevermind it does lol... but typing it into the web bar doesnt do that if you're on the page.

Namespace
Could you please create pages like Naff's sandbox "move" experiment" in your namespace? Ie USer:Not a fifty five/Naff's sandbox "move" experiment". Thanks. -- (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Yup. I'm still not quite sure how this namespace thing works exactly sorry :( (Not a fifty five 15:33, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Is there a reason it should be in my namespace? What are namespaces for? just to show it's meant for you and not the site? (Not a fifty five 15:39, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * It's to make clear that something is not official wiki content, but personal stuff of a user. The namespace thing isn't anything hard to understand. Just create an article as normal, but it's name should sart with "User:Not a fifty five/" and then continue with the usual name. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Just wondering, is there a way to see everything in a given namespace? There's one or two pages floating around in my namespace I think I haven't deleted yet, and looking through contributions would be annoying :( (Not a fifty five 00:16, 19 September 2006 (CDT))


 * There is no way that I know. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Here's everything in your user namespace: Special%3APrefixindex&from=Not+a+fifty+five&namespace=2 - and here's everything in your user_talk space: Special%3APrefixindex&from=Not+a+fifty+five&namespace=3. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:26, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * ooOOOoo

Moving discussions around
Please use and  when moving discussions. Also, if you are not sure how to do something, please ask someone with more experience to guide you. It will make less of a mess overall. Just a friendly word of advice. 66.90.73.113 15:49, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

K, I tried something similar in a sandbox I made and it didnt work :(. Copy pasting/deleting does the same thing as moving tho right?  Not much of a mess if I clean it up.  Thanks for the advice tho (Not a fifty five 15:53, 12 September 2006 (CDT))

Oh I see what you're talking about, yeah I was about to do that but I got sidetracked, thanks for doing it. (Not a fifty five 15:55, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * There is no need to go overboard with them either. One per section should suffice. The Shadow's Moved Comments was clearly intended as a subsection and you shouldn't have brought it back to a h2 heading again. Just leave it alone for now. 66.90.73.113 16:08, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Screening volunteer Mock up
Hi, this is a mock up for information concerning the "Refined double screening" candidate for the builds policy change at Guildwiki talk:builds If you have at least 50k+ balthazar faction or 30+ hours of PvE time (make a guess >.<)and want to volunteer as PvP/PvEscreener, sign up below where you would belong. Use a break, , as I do next to your sig. If you fit both PvP and PvE you can of course sign for both.

Note, in PvE Put any character classes you have NOT played as, using their symbol (Mo,A,W,Me,Rt,R,E,N) 50k-99k Bal faction PvP screener:

100k+ Bal faction PvP screener: (Not a fifty five 17:19, 13 September 2006 (CDT))

30+ hours for PvP screener:

60+hours for PvE screener: (Not a fifty five 17:19, 13 September 2006 (CDT))

The purpose of this is to see if we even have enough potential screeners to function. E.g. If we have 10+screeners in 100k+ then I would make the req for screening that. If not, then I would make it 50+. If we dont even have THAT, I wouldn't even vote for this, either voting for unrefined or something else. (Not a fifty five 17:23, 13 September 2006 (CDT))

Wheres the option for 550+ hours? only joking -- Cwingnam2000 17:24, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
 * lol

Don't get it :s whats this for? &mdash; Skuld 17:25, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Anyways, yeah sorry I didnt put the above paragraph originally, now read that and it'll explain what it for. (Not a fifty five 17:28, 13 September 2006 (CDT))


 * It would be better to sign for you expert profession, since some people like me only play certain profession -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 17:30, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Thats a good point, I'll change that
 * Still not clear, is this builds? Do you mean if you've played for 60 hours or have 100k faction you can sign up? Confused &mdash; Skuld 17:31, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh right, sorry this is assuming refined double screening gets passed, its a mock up. In refined DS, one of the candidates for the new builds policy, you need a small requirement to become a screener.  I'll add that to the top paragraph (Not a fifty five 17:34, 13 September 2006 (CDT))
 * Its use for the discussion to see if we have enough screener to use the Refined Screening Process for Builds vetting. If we dont have enough screener, theres nothing you can do but scrap that suggestion. -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 17:36, 13 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Two problems come to mind here (granted, this comment belongs in the build discussion, feel free to move it). First, a signup process signifies some degree of elitism - a concept which many in the wiki will fight.  Second, if you assume good faith, then you won't be asking for proof of a person's experience - so people could sign up and claim whatever it takes to let into the process, making the signup process irrellevent. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 13 September 2006 (CDT)


 * To the first problem, yeah the idea prolly wont get voted on XD This is just in case. To the second, You're right.  However, people usually dont lie about that sort of thing, I made a guild where one needed a small amount of faction to enter, and all except one was a good player, the one ended up joining just to scam anyways :( Lol he put up a scam add (500g to enter as officer!!!) in the same district I was in!  Not a very bright fellow(Not a fifty five 17:44, 13 September 2006 (CDT))

Alright its official, its been three days I think so I'm taking refined double screen out of the policies to vote on. (Not a fifty five 17:08, 15 September 2006 (CDT))

er nevermind, just realised it's needed as a referenced for unrefined >.<. I wouldn't put it up for a vote tho.

Work in progress template
You don't really need to use the work in progress template for an article in your namespace. It's used to "reserve" an article for an author while they make a bunch of edits to it. However people don't normally edit articles in some else's namespace :P --Xasxas256 22:15, 17 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Gotcha, too lazy to remove it now, tho >.< (Not a fifty five 22:27, 17 September 2006 (CDT))

Guild Recruiting :D
Just realised what a fun idea this would be. I have this guild that never went anywhere, it's nearly impossible to start a guild this late in the game. How about a guild for testing builds! that'd be pretty cool! Anyways, tell me if you're interested in joining it. (Not a fifty five 03:04, 18 September 2006 (CDT))
 * Hmmm...interesting idea, but I think I'll stick with my little guild for now. Its doing about as well as your is (if I didn't know beter I'd think you were talking about my guild on your user page) as of right now.  That may change later though, so we'll see after Nightfall comes out and I give this recruiting thing one last big push.  Oh, btw, nice team builds.--Azroth 12:21, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
 * lol, the Spearmen beat you too it. Read up on them if you haven't already, they're the guild of the month.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  16:38, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * interesting :) Currently talking a person who has friends in the guild. We'll see what happens (Not a fifty five 22:32, 15 October 2006 (CDT))

Team build testing?
Just saw that you need people to test your team build, I'd be glad to help out. If you wanna do it let me know.-Onlyashadow 12:08, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Sure :) little problem tho, I have 4 people in my guild lol. Atually I'm not even in my own guild atm! (I was looking into another guild for a bit for possible alliance.)


 * {o,o}
 * ),_,) O RLY? Looking for a guild you say? What's the top three roles you usually play (think TA&GvG)-Onlyashadow 12:25, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmmm.. I play a lot lol I have like all the skills practically. In Ta it'd be boon prot, anti-melee curses, and hammer warrior.  In 8 vs 8, it'd be prot monk, heal monk, or any type of mesmer.  But anyways, does your guild gvg/hoh then? I own the guild that I'm out of (craztreeboy is holding it atm), and if not then I'd like to try to get my guild going.
 * We have just "cleaned house" of all the people that were a detriment to our pvping (the leader and most of the officers) and we are now starting "a small serious pvp guild", we still are re-gathering the good players but we are in a fairly large alliance.
 * Guildname: Insert Funny...I forget [Here], we are allied with [ROFL], [ABCs], [Help], and I think [RA](formerly [TA]. So we generally don't have a shortage of people and we do plan on pvping quite seriously under a democratic leadership.-Onlyashadow 12:41, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

Cool, I think I'll join, gonna ask what my friend wants to do. I'll have an answer by the weekend (Not a fifty five 12:47, 19 September 2006 (CDT)) Oh and Crazytreeboy is good too. Slightly inexperienced with 8 vs 8, but he has great ideas, and is creater of the vetted build "Lightning Hammer" kk-Onlyashadow 12:51, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I can help from 3PM GMT - about 9 then 11 onwards from tomorrow-sat, drop me a line &mdash; Skuld 13:08, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks! :) We'll figure out an exact time once I get in the guild.  Just tell us which role ya wanna play.  Heh, sorry I'm revising the entire build tonight, but when I rechange it later I'd be more than welcome to have you help test.  And I'm using one of your suggestions too :)(Not a fifty five 13:17, 19 September 2006 (CDT))
 * Is this testing that Swarm build idea? I'd gladly help; I'd prefer to play the assassin (just tried it; the adrenalin gain is ludicruous)--Spawn 16:26, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * oh and about testing >.< I think we can all agree that this weekend in dervish and paragon weekend. (Not a fifty five 02:21, 21 September 2006 (CDT))

Alright the new version (it's in the talk page however) is complete, let's see what people think of this before we start testing it. I believe everything is much more concreate, the only thing which becomes fragile is the necromancer.
 * Reguarding the testing of The Swarm I'd prefer to run any of those builds 'cept the necro&ranger. On an unrelated note, I love POWERade.-Onlyashadow 13:11, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Lol as far as testing I have written an apology to that one guy with the long paragraph, and am currently revising it. Yeah again, sorry, but this is an 8 vs 8 build so the slightest concept change changes everything. However, invite me to your guild I'm "Not a fifty five" in game as well, and My friend has a character named "Cethen Arilken"(Not a fifty five 13:19, 21 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I would be glad to help with the testing, and I'm sure I could get a couple of guild members to help out.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:21, 21 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks :) after finally admitting Ninja Ned was right, I am able to transform the build into something thats actually quite grand, the final version being so good, I'm putting it up for untesting before policy change on the basis that it simply, utterly, kicks ass, and I don't give a *&^% if some noob votes it unfavored, it should get very many good votes. (Not a fifty five 13:23, 21 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Lol, ok, I notice you are now going for 3 healers, which is fine for me since I prefer playing healing/prot monk :) so my offer of service is still open :) Good luck!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:26, 21 September 2006 (CDT)


 * >.< Hey you gonna invite me or not lol. And sorry no testing this weekend.  Factions preview!!!!!!!!


 * And hey Crazytreeboy, when are you okay for testing?

Ideas
2 N/Mos for main heal: Order of pain/HH and BiP one Rt/ with attuned was songkai as healer R/N spirit spammer with BR

better sin builds &mdash; Skuld 14:07, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * :D Turns out I used two of your ideas not one >.< (Not a fifty five 21:16, 19 September 2006 (CDT))

Botherin' area
This is where you go to bother Naff when you see him AFK and using the guildwiki instead of playing with you.


 * Get back in the game, you were gone all last night and I gots stuff to show ya--Crazytreeboy 11:01, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
 * yayaya hold on. This title's a nice idea btw.  Considering I do this a lot I'm changing it to "everyone" instead of you lol(Not a fifty five 11:05, 23 September 2006 (CDT))

i dont know where else to put this, maybe you should move it, but i came up with this crazy build idea that gets each person with 2000+ hp. It could be used in GvG or HA, might be more effective in HA. It would be a bunch of monks, smiting, protecting, and healing that just use skills like essence bond that u manually cancel. Basically they bond everyone with different skills then they use Fertile Season boosting their health + AL, maybe into the thousands and use degen / lifedrain to kill because of such high armor. It would have maybe 1 oath spammer, 5 different monks, for "boniding" and 2 necro / mesmers for heavy degen and lifestealing. I think this build could eradicate any other in HA, Gvg,and probably AB :D -- Og lo 14:43, 11 October 2006 (CDT) give me as much feedback as you can, i hope this build becomes successful. My guild has done it before the great 6 man nerf and they were winning flawless against everything, even ranked 200 top guilds, it was crazy, now no one can be bothered :P i might be interested in joining ur guild IGN = THE BERSERKER CONAN :D -- Og lo 15:44, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Ummm...drowning in my own creation ;_;
Hey, can I trouble you for another look at my builds. For a while I was getting constant feedback, but that suddenly all just stopped and I kind of need some help. Either way, thanks for all the help so far, but if you feel like giving me a hand then just click on the first picture in my sig, it redirects you to my new builds page (a lot has changes since we last talked). Personally I feel the "Revitalizing Haste" monk has a lot of potential. Thanks again.&mdash; Azroth    23:27, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

New Category
Do we really need the new 'Continued Debate' category? The amount of builds in them and Untested are almost the same. --Ufelder 22:48, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Right I plan on deleting untested. People stopped caring, so I simply am adding uinrefined builds process (Not a fifty five 22:49, 14 October 2006 (CDT))


 * No offense and sorry if you are, but are you an admin here? If not, I don't think it's really proper for you to be going around stubbing categories on every single un-tested build and deleting the untested category. That seems pretty pointless. — Jyro X [[Image:Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|25px]] (contribs) 02:03, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Ha! I am an admin! I ban you for eternity! No I'm not actually but I cannot just delete a category, only the admins have that shiny red button, so its entirely in their hands.  All I can do is flag it for deletion, and if the admins decide to they can, just like in Category:Abandoned.  You rly think an admin will ever delete any of those builds? >.<(Not a fifty five 02:08, 15 October 2006 (CDT))
 * Do you realize that when that category is deleted, someone will have to go to all the builds it affects and take out the category tag? It's just creating excessive, additional, unnecessary work. I commend you on your desire to do something that you think will benefit the community. But the true question is: "Is it really worth it?" — Jyro X [[Image:Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|25px]] (contribs) 02:13, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * And that person would be me :P already took 6 hours to put tags up (Not a fifty five 02:14, 15 October 2006 (CDT))
 * If you're that determined, more power to you. Lol. I just hate to see all that work go to waste if the admins vote against it. — Jyro X [[Image:Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|25px]] (contribs) 02:17, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh they will :) that's not the point. Just consider me crazy for now but I have my reasons for putting a delete flag on something that won't get deleted. (Not a fifty five 02:31, 15 October 2006 (CDT))
 * You're edging dangerously close to disruption again. &mdash;Tanaric 23:10, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Hehe no greven is. Seriously.  Not even talking about policy at all before adding it? O.O (Not a fifty five 23:18, 15 October 2006 (CDT))
 * Atleast I hade a major vote on this policy, and waited a good 2 weeks to allow people to just sit there with the vote dangling way past its official ending (Not a fifty five 23:20, 15 October 2006 (CDT))

Short-Term Block
I hope 10 minutes doesn't piss you off; it was the easiest way to make sure you chilled out for a few, and read this. :)

You can't just invent a policy and start throwing it on pages. While I appreciate your enthusiasm and your motivation, this is not the way to go about it. Slapping categories on all the builds accomplishes nothing, and it's confusing.

The plethora of untested builds is a problem. I agree. But forcing them through at the last second weakens the wiki. Additionally, since you're stating you can only vote after testing, it seems very unlikely that anybody is actually going to vote. They could have voted in the last six weeks!

What you need to do is build up a project dedicated to screening untested builds. Make an article in the GuildWiki namespace dedicated to bringing together those brave souls who will test any and all builds, regardless of how bad they might appear, and then crusade through them all and do your rate-a-builds.

There is absolutely no problem in going back in rating builds that haven't reached consensus. There is a huge problem with mandating policy, especially with something so controversial.

&mdash;Tanaric 01:09, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

haha you freaked me there for a sec, I was like, "Blocked for creating a new category?!" You're right I actually started making a screening process in my own namespace a few weeks ago but lost interest. But really there were only two policies that really could be added, two category and unrefined, and the community decided one of the two should be instated and it just stopped. Are we really going to wait till after nightfall release for a revote? You realise the first week of nightfall means liek 15 builds a day for a while till it settles back down to 4 a day. That's like untested reaching 600 builds. Anyways somethings gotta be done. I'll stop now to think it over some more, but if I just go back and talk, nobody will decide anything before nightfall is released. (Not a fifty five 01:22, 15 October 2006 (CDT))

And you've got to admit.. nobody noticed for 6 whole hours. I think people really don't care anymore.

Also take a look at category:Abandoned which was made a week before my category. Thats a proposal nobody even voted on and they're calling for irreversable deletions. (Not a fifty five 01:26, 15 October 2006 (CDT))


 * It was noticed. I was notified both via IRC and email. I was just AFK and nobody else had the guts to stop you. :)


 * Getting a new builds policy is important, but it certainly isn't necessary to clean up untested. Use the existing vetting procedure, with a smidgeon of organization, and you can clean it up quite well. I'm sure that, among our thousands of users, you can find six or so to systematically go though the untested builds, test them, rate them, and move them. And, while you probably won't get all of them tested in the next two weeks, you can do some serious damage.


 * As far as Category:Abandoned, I'll take a look later tonight, but I was under the impression it was a totally different subject.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 01:27, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I noticed about 10 seconds after logging into GW, but I do have to sleep at times, hehe. Most of the talk about abandoned is on the template talk page, not the category. With regard to the new category, I dont feel it would help the process. The wiki needs more comments on builds not less. Btw, the builds you tagged are totally unconsistent with the statement on the category page (which I disagree with). --Xeeron 06:05, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Oh I wasn't going to wipe out untested or anything, I may have given that impression tho. I just wanted to rename the category. I wouldn't have started it if I had known it'd take 6 hours to flag all the builds >.< And I wasn't gonna touch the votes either, too much work lost (and too much work doing it), that'd be like 1000 votes.


 * About seven inches above this text (on my monitor), you said the following: "Right I plan on deleting untested." &mdash;Tanaric 01:41, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

yes, I was flagging all the build in untested as the new name and then going to flag the old name as deleted. Note I didnt actually expect an admin to delete untested lol, I'd hate to see what'd happen to the admin that did. But I was going to change the name that appeard on Builds from untested to continued debate (Not a fifty five 01:46, 15 October 2006 (CDT))


 * Uh. Why? &mdash;Tanaric 03:24, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Also&mdash;please revert these category additions until you can build consensus for such a sweeping change. &mdash;Tanaric 06:08, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * shrug* well meanwhile, if you don't mind, I'd just like to keep it cause it took way longer than I thought it'd take. I'll blank out what it says tho.  like "for possible future use" (Not a fifty five 13:19, 15 October 2006 (CDT))

Look, if its any help I've been working on testing builds and voting on them. Right now I only have, Ele, Sin, Monk, and Ritualist characters so those are all I can test. When Nightfall comes out I'll be gaining a Paragon, Dervish, Mesmer, and Necromancer, So I'll be able to test everything besides Ranger and Warrior. Just thought Id let you know so that If something like this ever comes to pass and your looking for people who will test builds and vote on them I'd be willing to do so. Thats all.&mdash; Azroth    17:38, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

The fine line between boldness and recklessness
"Be bold." This simple phrase is tossed around quite a bit around the English Wikipedia. It's something we used to say here, too, believe it or not. The vast majority of the prenatal GuildWiki&mdash;that is, before we became ridiculously popular&mdash;was written by less than 10 people who really had no idea what they were doing. They didn't have policy articles or administrators or style and formatting guides. They didn't even have wikiskills. All they had was a great deal of respect for eachother and the then-far-off idea of what the GuildWiki could become.

When one of them wanted to write a guide, they did so. When one decided we should have an article on every skill in the game, a couple joined and started working. And when I raised concerns about using capital letters in article titles, the others gracefully humored me. There was a comraderie there that overrode the "be bold" idea. We knew that we could not simply be bold, because then the GuildWiki would fail; we had to be bold without being reckless.

It is quite likely that none of those original editors realized the fine line they walked along so elegantly. However, they learned after an incident with a certain user that created a good 600 articles about a concept that ended up being completely false. That mess took ages to clear up, and even now, cruft from that escapade is occasionally encountered. That user wasn't being bold: he was being reckless.

The GuildWiki was started by a few geeks. Our love of classication and tree-like structure is still prevalent. People now are beginning to realize that trees can't quite do everything. In some cases, editors are moving forward and adding additional classification mechanisms in areas that greatly need it. This is bold, and it needs to be done, and the wiki is significantly better off for it. You are attempting to change the old structures completely. This is reckless, and should stop immediately. I realize the line between the two is incredibly fine. I also realize that it's okay to sometimes cross that line. But it's important for you to realize that when numerous experienced editors harp at you for being reckless, they really do have reasons for what they're saying.

&mdash;Tanaric 02:27, 16 October 2006 (CDT)