Talk:Meleemancer guide/Archive 1

Talk:Meleemancer guide

Talk:Meleemancer guide/Archive 1

CAN I ADD AN ESSAY ABOUT MELEEMANCER TO THE MELEEMANCER ARTICLE WITHOUT GETTING BANNED PLEASE? Administrate users, not content
Can I please add an essay about strategy to this build?
 * Can Barek be made to suffer some consequences for banning me because I added information on playing as a meleemancer ON THE MELEEMANCER PAGE?!
 * Additional Strategy from the Creator of the Jaguar Sword meleemancer (Used to be linked, and I think it still should be but hey don't wanna get BANNED OR anything for POSTING USEFUL THINGS on RELATED ARTICLES!!)

Here is the essay: read it before you ban anyone next time.


 * I'm sure there is a quote somewhere in the book, The Art of War, that says something like, "First block the attack, then counter attack." This illustrates one possible way of playing the meleemancer build.  To Start out with they can raise dead bodies, manipulate health and curse, which are good for shutting down or to "block" an enemy's attack.
 * Skills like Insidious Parasite, Faintheartedness, Enfeebling Blood, and Wither all come to mind...all of which "shutdown" or specific targets from doing their job.
 * The block is within grasp.
 * Now for the counter attack. Although the blood spikes of the necromancer are only about half as powerful as those of an elemantalist, they provided an important added bonus - health regeneration! With Blood magic, you can successfully keep your health up independent of outside healing while simultaneously damaging your opponent for spike damage.


 * Before I get into the delicate and almost fragile art of using a sword as a necromancer, let me first say that the meleemancer has a unique playing style that, just like learning to ski or to snowboard, takes a while to learn, but eventually pays off, just like anything else that is full of danger and excitement.


 * I ask you to try not to let thoughts of doubt cloud your mind. First think, what if? What if you could pull off using a sword as a caster; if you could have 4 energy blips but do the damage of a warrior when you wanted to? It is not for me to tell you all of the exact benefits of such a feat, but what should be obvious by now is the danger of close combat - and one to be wary of, for certain. But one, that, as a necromancer, can be overcome. Once this barrier is broken, the doors that open by using a sword become readily at hand - the energy management of a zealous weapon - the adren skills that cost zero energy, and the interrupts.


 * Meleemancer is not a build for the faint of heart, but it is a build for those brave enough to try and fail and for those who desire strength beyond that of a "normal" caster.

like I said THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ESSAY!~ Its about HOW TO PLAY MELEE MANCER
 * It's not like "my name is Brian, I was born in Hawaii" It talks about The Art of War, skills of necromancer and how to use a sword as a necro.  There is nothing personal about it.




 * It is a personal essay, you're giving your opinion in the first person (note all the usage of the word "I" in there). It definitely does not belong in the article in its current form.  --Rainith 17:01, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Lets see here: First we should define what a personal essay actually IS before we start arguing whether or not any writing is.  I think that is an essay about the life of the writer.  Can everyone agree on this?  If so, then we can all agree that the above writing is not about the life of the author, and thus it IS NOT "A PERSONAL ESSAY."
 * BY THE WAY I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE "**PERSONAL ATTACKS**" THE BICKERING AND THE GENERAL inflammatory ACCUSATIONS THAT PEOPLE ARE MAKING TOWARDS ME.
 * SO STOP
 * Jagre 23:21, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Without resorting to an ad hominum attack here, I'd like to contribute that "personal" does not mean "life of the author." The word you're looking for there is "autobiographical."  The issue here is that your essay presents only your personal opinion, without the objectivity of clear evidence (i.e. screenshots, specific descriptions of, say, how the strategy counters specific attacks, and so on).  That's what's making it a "personal essay" (I should know this, I write tons of such 'personal essays' in my blog) and not an objective piece in the tone suitable for a documentative wiki.  This is not to say that opinion doesn't belong in a wiki, but it needs to be supported by evidence and clear reasoning, which will enable readers to take your opinion seriously.  &mdash; [[Image:Fin_sig.gif|User:Kyrasantae]] kyrasantae   23:55, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * OMG! HEY CHECK THIS OUT!
 * google search: "define: personal essay"
 * RESULTS: "an essay written in the first person usually about the writer's life," "a narrative that focuses on a central idea about the writer or the writer's life and is supported by a variety of incidents from the writer's life."
 * JAGREJagre 01:12, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * /sigh...I promised myself I wouldn't respond to this guy anymore. But Jagre, you conveniently left out the second result to your exact query: "an essay which emphasizes a personal, subjective view."  That's exactly what you were trying to present in this article (seeing as how you were trying to promote a view which a plurality of users has voted as unfavored), and that's exactly what does not belong on the wiki.  This wiki is for objective, factual information about the game (and that's why there is such debate about the very existence of the builds section).  Kyrasantae said this all very well in the comment just above yours. Jinkas 01:25, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The first definition is more applicable to, say, a college application essay or something of that nature anyway (as I've seen that term used on said application forms). Whatev. &mdash; [[Image:Fin_sig.gif|User:Kyrasantae]] kyrasantae   20:44, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I feel embarrassed even reading the above rant, I can't imagine how hard it must have been for you to write. My hat off to you, bud.
 * Anyways, please calm down with this whole banning Barek thing. As far as wiki policy goes, you were wrong, he was right, and there's all there is to it. What can be argued is that the punishment was too severe, since it was obvious you were having trouble fully understanding what the "normal procedure" is for many things around here, and that's understandeable. Also you need to remember that it was Barek himself that unbanned you, feeling that it might have been inappropriate for a ban to be placed like that.


 * Now, here's why your "essay" was inappropriate for the article. First off, it was incredibly personal,I wish I could find a quote from Sun Tzu to start this off, but I don't have the book, but anyways I'd like to start with something like "First Block the attack, young grasshopper, then counter attack". I, as a reader stumbling on thsi article would have to ask "Who cares?" I as a wiki reader couldn't care less about who you are, or about whether you read Sun Tzu or Sunday tabloids, or about how good an impression of the teacher from "Karate Kid" you can do. "I ask of you, do not let thoughts of doubt cloud your mind. First think, what if?" This not not a wiki article, this is the intro of a self-help book. "Delicate and almost fragile art of using a sword as a necromancer" ? I strongly suggest you invest some time in studying how objective prose is supposed to be written, how factual reports are supposed to present just that, facts, and not read in the same way a war-time illegal pamphlet seeking to incite a rebellion in the populace would read.
 * Even if somehow such a style of writing was acceptable, remains that the entire passage is full of utterly untrue and completely subjective statements. Insidious Parasite is #1 melee shutdown? Says who? With blood magic you can successfully keep your health up as a frontline squishy? Says who? Vampiric Touch is "major spike damage"? Says who? You can do the damage of a warrior with 10 points in swordsmanship and 0 in strength? Oh really?
 * These statements are not true. The presentation style was highly inappropriate for a wiki article. Now combine the two together, what do we have as a result? A passage that doesn't belong on the main namespace. If you want to copy it in a new article inside your userspace, feel free to do so. Those edits do not belong in an article on the main namespace though. --Dirigible 17:17, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * you are such a noob omg, how can people actually let you post here? first off, my edit fit the page very well as it talked about strategy.  second, this is not the place to criticize people for referring to books on strategy when discussing strategy in guild wars.
 * third, a user is free to use any style of writing they choose and it is inappropriate of you to insult the writing style of anyone. -"how good an impression of the teacher from "Karate Kid" you can do."
 * fourth, the edit in question discusses nothing more than how a player may use a "meleemancer" and tries to gives tips on doing so. Furthermore, the title of the page is "guide: meleemancer."
 * 5) If you don't want the word "major" in there, FINE, that is YOUR own SUBJECTIVE opinion, but to DELETE entire edits just because of one word is INAPPROPRIATE for the wiki environment and against policy.
 * Jagre 01:26, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Jagre, your comments about being a noob and being allowed to post here are in direct violation of GW:YAV. You have already received many warnings and attracted the attention of multiple admins.  If I were you I would brush up on my knowledge of the site's policies and tread very lightly around here for some time.  I'm no admin, but I doubt you will get another warning. Jinkas 01:32, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * JINKAS, I normally don't like pointing out people's "policy breaking" but since you do so towards my comments SO MUCH, and since I have asked you to stop several times and you do not, I will now have to show you what policies you are in violation of. among them GW:NPA mostly by accusing me of things.

Also if you want to "point out policy violations" the user page is a better place for it, as they rarely are relevant to the page under discussion.

REQUEST FOR JINKAS' ABOVE "personal attack" TO BE DELETED (as well as response to it), citing GW:NPA, "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"


 * Jagre 21:33, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

--Dirigible 21:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Personal essay
Barek, you can't ban people for no reason. I did not "re-revert" I left out what you said was flawed about the edit, until you could discuss the matter with me. You deleted the entire article twice. See the edit as for it's being a "personal essay." Banning me without reason IS a personal attack, which IS against policy, not to mention deleting the whole article just because. Look at the article, and someone ban Barek - he has no right to delete constructive articles like that, or ban me for no reason. I was NOT in violation of policy - I am the victim of a personal attack and abuse of power. It was not a "personal essay" LOOK AT IT.

Jagre 15:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Personal essay's belong in the user space, not in articles. The personal essay on this page was removed. Per GW:1RV, it should not be restored without first taking it to this article's talk page for community discussion. The argument that was given on my talk page for restoring it was that I was in violation of GW:1RV, although I had only done the first reversion. I encourage others to view history of what was removed and to provide community opinions here on the content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:22, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Inexperienced users tend to not look at the edit history for the edit summaries. While I wouldn't have banned him (I'm probably more lenient than most admins about banning), Barek's removal of the edit was correct.  I think a huge chunk of this article should be axed for having a similarly wrong tone.  --Fyren 15:25, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Note: I removed the ban as I'm directly involved - I feel it's more appropriate for a different admin to make that call. (I left a note on Gares Redstorm's talk page, as I didn't realize that Fyren had already spotted this posting). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:28, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * From reading Barek's talk page, it looks like Jagre believed he was doing the right thing, unfortunately it wasn't the right thing. Myself, I wouldn't ban someone for a first offense in this situation, though I believe Jagre understands now. If it reverted again by him, I would expect adminstrative action would be the best course of action. &mdash; Gares 15:45, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I should've also referenced this prior warning at User_talk:Jagre. But, you are correct that he appears to have thought he was doing the right thing at the time on the edit here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

See User talk:Gem. -- (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I think I'd rather see the policy changed than admonish someone, whether a normal user or admin, for making the edits Barek did. --Fyren 18:16, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Even so, the policy is still in effect and must be followed. I'm not against changing the policy, but untill that... --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Two comments. I'm posting a reply on Gem's talk page, as requested. I also wish to point out that the sequence of events have been mangled here, which can be seen in the talk page history. As it shows now, it implies that User:Jagre posted his reason for restoring his edits here, to which I then replied. That is not the case; he did not insert his arguments above my post until after the fact. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:26, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Barek: Here is the sequence of events: I added an appropriate edit. You deleted it with a comment about the link (deleting edits is against policy).  Next, I warned you on your page of your malicious action, and said I was going to re-add the so-called essay on STRATEGY (AND NOT PERSONAL MATTERS).  (If you don't like my writing style, including the use of the first person, you should discuss that in the dissucssion page and not BLANK any writing).  Then, I followed through my said statements on your page which was to re-add the edits that you deleted without your said flaws (the link) WITH A COMMENT (see history for proof of this).  You the RE-REVERTED the page to blankness which was the first actual breach of policy AND BANNED ME!  I was then unbanned and have not acted further in the page.  I then reported you to other admins.  Jagre 23:14, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I have posted the actual sequence of events on Gem's talk page. Discussions on our dispute should remain in that location.
 * As for the proposed content - you have several flawed assumptions and misinterpretations of site policy in your statement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:19, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Jagre, if you want to post your version of the incident, please do so on my talk page. I'm eager to hear it. What comes to your interpretation of GW:1RV, you are wrong. You first broke the policy as no conversation (=more than one comment from one user) was held before you readded the text to the article. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)