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)

I'm not that bothered about it, I wanted to just show the logo and not message, didn't work so I gave up &mdash; Skuld 10:01, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I just used the following CSS in User:LordBiro/monobook.css to reduce the size of the nightfall warning icon and make the box smaller. I don't know how universal it is though!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:39, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


 * 1) nightfall-notice { float: right; clear: right; width: 76px !IMPORTANT; min-width: 0px !IMPORTANT; }
 * 2) nightfall-notice img { height: 64px; width: 64px; }
 * 3) nightfall-notice p, #nightfall-notice ul { display: none; }

Why?
You have blocked my Onlyashadow account from making edits...I can assume because you think I was abusing the build voting/rating system. Although my alleged actions may have been "naughty" I would like you to explain to me why the two favored votes in the W/any Enraged Smasher talk page are not also subject to strikeout ...If you could also unblock my editing ability that would be super-terrific.-85.195.119.22 10:53, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

In Response
(to your note on my talk page) I did not cheat. The loging was a simple mistake due to me letting my friend use my computer so he could vote.-11:05, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

68.236.0.0/14
The ones in that range are probably a pool of dynamic IPs. The others are probably open proxies. --Fyren 11:16, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Thats the word I wanted >_< &mdash; Skuld 11:17, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Also, 85.195.119.14-15 and 85.195.119.22-25 appear to belong to anonymouse.org, a public proxy. --Fyren 11:27, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I find the action of "Silencing" me and continual blocking of these IP's uncouth and immature. I would expect more from people running a wiki.-85.195.123.22 11:36, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * No. 209.173.128.203 and 38.119.107.81 are definitely open proxies.  Ignoring the votes cast from your IP and username on Talk:W/any Enraged Smasher, considering the edit histories/vote times for those IPs, it's pretty clear someone at your computer did it.  I don't care if it was you or your friend.  I agree with Skuld on this.  I am going to ban the anonymouse.org proxy IPs.  You can wait a week or try e-mailing Tanaric to appeal.  --Fyren 11:46, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Or...not :\

 * You reek of hostility, now if you could please send me the following, I promise to stay banned till my OaS's week is up:


 * Tanarics Email
 * Guildwiki's policy/ToS reguarding users using proxies
 * -64.92.167.26 11:57, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The main issue is cheating the vote system for your own ends. User:Tanaric &mdash; Skuld 11:59, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Thank you, I\'ll be back on the 10th.-75.126.40.74 12:05, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Blood Spiker
You did this: (cur) (last) 14:27, 4 October 2006 Skuld (Talk | contribs) m (→Blood Spiker - better example please...) I guess, if there are no example at all, any example is enough good.
 * Unsound logic if there ever was one :s List Shadow Strike and Vampiric Gaze but don't provide an actual bar, imo, and point at the tombs team build &mdash; Skuld 11:36, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

After a shortly considering, I guess u have right, and not:) I dont think the stone of Caba is in my own, I have modified my wiev at N/Mo Blood Spiker thing. Please help me, if u have tried this build in PvE situation, and u can make it better. I have really enough from that thing, if I am a necro I should have been MM or SS and nothing else. Crowley 22:40, 4 October 2006 (CET)


 * If it is PvE you shouldn't be spiking. Blood spike is 5-8 necros killing one target in 2 seconds.


 * Heres a random PvE blood build you may like

good luck &mdash; Skuld 15:48, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

Hmm how many Factions skill.. so tricky.. thanks at all. I have to thinking well. Maybe I thought a different thing. Spike a big mount and heal well. Crowley 00:19, 5 October 2006 (CET)

Images, images... so many images... (more deletes)
Images that aren't linked to anymore, as better images have been uploaded. Image:Kz15kMRit.jpg Image:Kz15KMRitSilverBlueGreen.jpg Image:Maleritualist15kkurzickarmorfront.JPG Image:Maleritualist15kkurzickarmorback.JPG Image:Ritmalekurzascendedcomponent1.jpg Image:Ritmalekurzascendedcomponent2.jpg Image:Ritmalekurzascendedhead.jpg

Thanks -Auron  21:24, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

The immage for Armor of Mist does not appier even though it is there when you actualy go to the immage in queestion. Thought you'd like to know. Sir On The Edge 16:20, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * http://gw.gamewikis.org/images/a/ad/Armor_of_Mist.jpg your ad blocker will be stopping it from showing. Mediawiki organises images into folders, just happened that the code on this was "ad" &mdash; Skuld 16:26, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Ecelent, I've whitelisted it. You should prolly move it though before some other confused soul come along. Sir On The Edge 17:19, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

"Usage Notes"
I noticed you changing "Useage Notes" to "Notes". When I encounter the former on a skill page, should I change it to the latter? Frostty1 00:19, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It should be 'Notes', not 'Usage Notes'. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeh, and strip all the "do not remove this" commented stuff (lol..) &mdash; Skuld 01:07, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Related Skills -> Related skills too &mdash; Skuld 01:08, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

sometimes you just need a little laugh...
[http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AA%2FW_Cracker&diff=349251&oldid=348132 That might interest you... somebody invented a new skill!] ^^ ~ Nilles (chat) 09:54, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh i'm loving that xD &mdash; Skuld 09:55, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * lol :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:38, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Sorry about the edit
Hey Skuld,

I apologize for reverting the edit you did. I just checked the history after the fact and realized that I put back what you removed. I'll be sure to check the history next time before making edits.

Deacon


 * Np, its easy to get mixed up with conflicts, the screen isn't very clear ^-^. Just need to link to the same thing once :) &mdash; Skuld 14:35, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Request
As one of the most well known names arround this wiki site I wonder if you could comment on some of the Nightfall builds I'm working on, I don't know if you do requests but it would be it's wheight in gold (he he, digital gold) to me if you could take a look. It's on my user page, I've set up a space in my talk section for any of the builds I'm working on that are unreleased for testing. It's all theoretical of course but I can't help feeling 2 out of the 4 may not be as good as I planned. Sir On The Edge 16:09, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The scyth assassin one looks interesting, i'll give that a go when nightfall comes out. Soulbreaker ftw! Paragon one looks solid apart from "Stand Your Ground!" which is a bit of a naff skill really, ele AoE and warriors are still tough dmg dealers and it will be useless against them, i'm unsure of how tough and frequent paragon mobs will be for it to be worth it. The anti-enchantment build looks interesting, but I strongly recommend you add in parasitic bond as a cover! I am unsure of the ele, it looks a bit spread out and not too useful >_< Nice builds ^-^ &mdash; Skuld 16:33, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Scyth: Good to hear. Paragon: It was a bit of a throw in skill, I'll swap it for "We Shall Return!" and the rez signet for Signet of Return. Anti-Ench: Do you mean Parasitic Bond instead of Blood of the Aggressor or Signet of Sorrows? Personally I think Blood of the Aggressor but I'm in love with both skills :( . Elementist: I have yet to see a good mixed build and I have alwayes wanted to make the first that mixes them in a way that each skill contributes the next, but alas I may have to wait for the 4th episode to emerge. Sir On The Edge 17:20, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Drop awaken imo. Awaken is unreliable and not that great, have you seen how much blood and curse skills increase at high levels? >_< &mdash; Skuld 17:16, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Advice taken, but now BOTA is the only blood skill I'm using and it's annoying me. Do you think I should leave it of swap it for Defile Flesh? (which is also a loveable skill) Sir On The Edge 17:28, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Complications in build vetting
Hey Skuld, there is something amiss at Talk:W/any Utility Warrior, regarding the first five 'favored' votes. I've already asked Tanaric about an IP scan, but I've learned that such is not possible. Since you're concerned with builds, I would like you to know about this and I'd appreciate your input. ~ Nilles (chat) 09:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I've blocked all the one-contrib accounts, they all voted within minutes of each other. I am unsure of NMX112 (cont) and DeathByPepsi, i've asked for them to provide their IGNs. NMX112's contributions are mainly voting on Pepsi's builds (utility and dominator) and discussion on the Mo/Rt healer, which Pepsi has also been activte on. Looking at it 75.33.138.89 could be Pepsi too, the IP's sole contribution is a vote on the Mo/Rt build, and it starts off with "Good build," like NMX112 and DeathByPepsi. I'll give NMX112 a bit to prove his innocance as I am unsure about this account. Tiresome :( &mdash; Skuld 09:25, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Kinda sad if someone would actually go through all that trouble just to get their build vetted. x___X — Jyro X [[Image:Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|25px]] (contribs) 09:27, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I guess you've already had your way with the problem then. I'm just glad I didn't have to claim socketpuppetry. :) ~ Nilles (chat) 09:30, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

NMX and Lenzeppellin have the same writing style, both use "PS" and highlight emphesis (sp) in CAPITALS. I need some more opinions on Lenzeppellin/NMX112/DeathByPepsi &mdash; Skuld 09:51, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * You're right, they do look close. It's just that their contribs don't match up. The timeline of their edits is not as contiguous as one would expect from a single user. ~ Nilles (chat) 11:29, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It's not that hard for someone to wait a day or use diferent accounts during diferent times. I'm sure I could manage it if I wanted. Also getting my builds liked by the comunity is high prioraty to me and so I would gess it's the same for others too. Sir On The Edge 13:05, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * When are people going to realize that unless you have split personalities you should only have one accout? Just sad that people go through all this trouble thinking that they're being clever.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  13:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

"Date", "User" 13:51:00 6 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 14:01:00 6 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 02:17:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 04:53:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 05:33:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 05:33:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 05:34:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 06:56:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 11:01:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 11:42:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 11:58:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 20:51:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 20:53:00 7 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 20:54:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 20:55:00 7 "October", "NMX112" 07:11:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:12:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:13:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:13:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:18:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:19:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:19:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:25:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:27:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 07:28:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 09:31:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 09:36:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 09:36:00 8 "October", "NMX112" 16:00:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 16:04:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 16:14:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 16:22:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 16:26:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 16:36:00 8 "October", "Lenzeppellin" 01:56:00 9 "October", "NMX112" 01:57:00 9 "October", "NMX112" 02:03:00 9 "October", "NMX112" 02:05:00 9 "October", "NMX112" 04:13:00 9 "October", "Lenzeppellin"

These are the edits of both users since Lenzeppellin has started contributing ordered by date. I don't say that a clever mind wouldn't be able to produce something like this, but it's highly unlikely. ~ Nilles (chat) 17:38, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Talk:Mo/any Bond-Powerhealer
Why did you strike Goats and Labmonkeys votes in that vote? Please leave a comment in the summary line, that vote is getting horribly messed up, hard to see what happened when. --Xeeron 13:19, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Reading their comments, neither of them had tested it &mdash; Skuld 14:12, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Still, there are TONS of votes by people who did not actually test builds, there is currently no policy against it. These people claim to have partied alongside the build, which is more than can be said for lots of votes that are not striked out. Please restore the votes. --Xeeron 17:31, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Build sorting
Hey, could you or someone go through the Untested category and see if any of the builds meet the criterial to be moved to tested/unfavored and if so move them? I was casting votes last night (because it seems like very few people are lately) and saw several sin builds that shouldn't be in untested anymore, but since I was the last one to vote on them I dont think I should be moving them as well. Is this correct or if I cast the deciding vote should I move the build as well? Oh, one more quick question. Its 3 votes to move a build, but is it 3 to move to tested, or 3 more than unfavored to move to tested, and vice versa? Thanks a lot.&mdash; Azroth    14:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Um, just generaly voting without testing? You shouldn't do that. Sir On The Edge 14:51, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * lol of course not. I was one of the people who along with 55 got so annoyed with that.  I tested a ton af sin builds over the past week and wrote all my notes on them down, and then went in last night to do mass voting posts after testing them all.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  16:14, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Just making sure. :D Sir On The Edge 16:28, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * You can move the build, even if you have the last vote, it is just kind of "nicer" if it is someone else doing the move. And it is "3 more" for a move to either unfavored or favored. --Xeeron 17:19, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I took care of your latest edits, Azroth. I hope I got them all. ;) ~ Nilles (chat) 17:28, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Revert Thing
hey is there a template u use for revert messages? i noticed a revert you did and it says like a specific message i've seen before. just wondering --Fiz 19:56, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It's an auto-generated message that is put there when an Admin uses the "revert-button" option. So yeah you've probably seen it before.  :)  --Rainith 22:01, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Banning for sockpuppetry..
I believe you have set a precedent for that, and one that actually went against the apathy that this community has shown about the issue. Please do not ban future suspected sockpuppets, just discount their votes. --Karlos 21:52, 9 October 2006 (CDT)