User talk:Skuld/Archive 18

E/A Mind Blast Ganker
Any good? Might get 4+1 in Air for Gale for a KD or something. Immolate or Smoldering can be replaced with Liquid Flame or Meteor or something. &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 11:50, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Scratch that, misread Glowing Gaze is better. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 12:06, 2 January 2007 (CST)

I'm thinking Gale is better, steam has an 8 sec recharge and everyone carries condition removal, Gale has no counter and is more likely to save you. I think my version is more dmg, they're all half damage fire attacks and immolate sucks &mdash; Skuld 12:42, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Projectile attack? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 12:51, 2 January 2007 (CST)


 * Yup. Constant burn tho, and flare works sometimes, lol &mdash; Skuld 12:52, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Just So You Don't Feel Left Out
Here you go Skuld...just since you said i shouldn't give awards...here's a little prezzie :D Enjoy  >/ Fusco \< 13:43, 2 January 2007 (CST)

lol. awesome :D&mdash; Azroth    22:24, 2 January 2007 (CST) I'm just one of the many victims :). LeDeni 18:24, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Userboxes of doom
Ok, so I thought creating that hijack and missile user boxes for you would be quaint and mildly humorous but I never thought you would be flooded with so many userboxes like this. It's kinda getting crazy! Looks like you'll soon have to clean up all the user boxes that aren't vetted now. heh. ("\('o')/") --  Vallen Frostweaver  14:28, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Hehe, we all got together in a secret meeting and decided that Skulds userpage was too small and neat, so we agreed to flood him with userboxes. This isn't really necessary anymore, as Skuld gave us all permission to edit his userpage.  Now we can enlarge it with boxes whenever we want...bwahahahahahaha!! :P&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  22:31, 2 January 2007 (CST)

On a related note...

enjoy :D&mdash; Azroth    22:54, 2 January 2007 (CST)

R/Me Condition Spreader
This was merged with the R/Me Feverish Archer, but since it is in unfavored, I figure it might be a while until mine was deleted unless I specifically asked that it be. So, unlike every other time someone posts something about deletions on your page, I am actually asking you to delete my build. :) Defiant Elements 15:33, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Hey
You might want to check my talk page. Midnight08 said he wanted admin intervention, so I figured I would contact you as it looks like you're the only admin online at the moment. — Jyro X 16:37, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Hey Skuld, I came across the confusion on that page and attempted to resolve it myself before realizing they had requested admin intervention. Please feel free to review it, but it looks like it was just a misunderstanding and shouldn't require action from an admin, as long as everyone is happy with my edit. -- BrianG 16:58, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Oops, in case its not clear, the page in question is Build talk:Me/D Mystic IW. -- BrianG 16:59, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Looks like you and Barek beat me to it &mdash; Skuld 17:29, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Quick Question about ToC
Hey Skuld, after archiving my talk page, my table of contents for my talk page has disappeared. I don't really understand how ToCs work as sometimes people specify their appearance, but often they seem to exist by default. I can't seem to find any difference in the code on my talk page (compared to my archived talk page for example) that would explain why the ToC is not there by default. I'm sure I could make it appear by specifying it, but I was hoping you could explain how it works. -- BrianG 17:56, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Add to the top of the page &mdash; Skuld 17:59, 2 January 2007 (CST)


 * By default, a TOC will only show if the page has three or more subjects. You can force it to always show with the code provided by Skuld. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ahhhhhh perfect, thats the information I was looking for Barek. And thanks for the code Skuld.  I am all set now. :) -- BrianG 18:02, 2 January 2007 (CST)


 * This remind me a good question: I can't find (even after a search) anywhere someting about the GuildWiki tags, like include, TOC, clear, etc.. where is it referenced? Corsaire  [[image:Corsaire_Signature.gif]] 02:26, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * I go to category:Templates :S - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 03:34, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Didn't thought about this.. :s thanx for the advice.. :$ Corsaire  [[image:Corsaire_Signature.gif]] 03:39, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Hey
Care for a banhammer opportunity? User:Fable Warlord is making excessive usage of epithets and explatives, as well as being a disgrace to GWiki in general. Thanks. Entropy 06:43, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * Hm, I may have spoken too soon. The user seems to have acknowledged that he made a lapse in judgment and now requests the page for deletion. Unless he is being sarcastic; I cannot tell. Entropy 06:50, 3 January 2007 (CST)

I think I agree with your first sentiment. I think his asking for the page being deleted is just part of his stupidity and having "fun". Capcom 06:52, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * Now I think he's just messing with folks. He's clearly high on something. Or perhaps a schizophrenic whatchacallit that has visions and hears voices. Clearly out of his mind. Even if he was behaving well I'd call for a ban, he is making zero sense whatsoever and thus "Making useless comments" would be my reason... Entropy 07:06, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * I read through the whole talk page and I think the guy deserves some kind of ban for the use of harsh words and insulting. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * Where is Skuld when you need him? :S Makes me wish for that good ole "Bell" command...ah well. See, Gem, you should be an admin, you're the only one up when I am, at 4:00 AM on a schoolnight. :) Entropy 07:18, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * Done, but I only had a very brief look, if any other admin who's got more time and hasn't been in bed with the flu for most of the day wishes to increase his ban or look over it more fully that's fine by me. Right now I'm a candidate for more sleep ~_~ --Xasxas256 07:25, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * Having read some of this guys comments on Build talk:W/any Mokele Hammer, I agree that he seriously needed a time out. Looks to me like he sas trying to see how far he can go till we'll finally kick him. --84-175 (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * Yeah, I think the nub admin did ok. :P --Karlos 08:20, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Deletion Request
Build:W/Mo Holy Backbreaker author requested deletion. Thanks! -- BrianG 11:33, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Deleted -.-
Hi, my build W/A Adrenal Shadows got deleted and I have no idea why, I know it may suck but I'd at least want to be able to look in the discussion part to see what people are saying. Ziakan


 * Similar to Build:W/A_Blade_Spammer and it's various revisions, plus its just a bad dragon slasher, of which we have in tested &mdash; Skuld 14:38, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Dwarven Hammer deleted
The build I created was deleted with no side comment. Did it move somewhere else or did it get the axe for another reason? Lonely Monk 15:24, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * No edits for a month -> deleted. I can restore it if you are gonna do something with it &mdash; Skuld 15:26, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * Thanks, that'll be great. I'm back from break and ready for another go. Oh and that was wicked fast reply. Lonely Monk 15:33, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Deleted again. If you read the talk page you would have noticed that the two builds were not related at all and no reason for the deletion tag in the first place. The build was cleaned up and ready to be voted on. Lonely Monk 13:41, 6 January 2007 (CST)


 * Oops, i'll put that on my watchlist :D &mdash; Skuld 15:56, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Fuuuuuuuuuuuu.....
>< I just posted a huge ass comment, and then it was lost...

On hindsight that was probably a good thing because it'd be a bother to read.

In short, I'm bothered by the quickness of the build's deletion, that though, in this case, it was correct, it did not allow response from individuals who might disagree with my proposal of deletion (ie. the OP). I cited the Melandru's Ranger again as my (only) example where judgement from a few contributors may be wrong even if it seemed to tilt towards one side initially, and that despite the obvious lack of quality in the article, some form of discussion or room for discussion should be allowed in case there are human errors.

I then wondered about the policies of the guild wiki, because I'm not really sure whether it's meant to be democractic (I know guild wiki is not wikipedia, so I'm not so sure), but to delete something so rapidly seemed to suggest that the comments of a few must be.. infallible. I obviously believe it should've been deleted, and will laugh at anyone who believes otherwise, but since it's obvious where the discussion will end anyway, shouldn't it, for the sake of courtesy, allowed to live for a moment longer? Perhaps a 24 hours grace period as a new policy? What if mistakes are made? By an admin and some editors who really did make a mistake-- afterall, as I've tried to show, mistakes can be made.


 * , I ended up saying too much anyway. =/--Silk Weaker 15:34, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Only reason that hasnt been heavily argued in the past i believe is that even tho Skuld is quick to delete builds, if asked nicely (hell even if asked rudely), he's just as quick to pull them back out of the foundry by request. As long as the admins are still willing to use their Rez sigs on the builds for a user its really not that big a deal. (look about 10 inches up (on 1024/768) for an example=P)--Midnight08 16:06, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * Mmmm, well, it could dissuade people who had something to say. They could go "hey, where did the build go? Oh well, I'll just go play guild wars then".
 * But yes, I'm not accusing Skuld of being... too... abusive (he has a tag for that ^^), but maybe... hmmm. I don't know. I think before I speak, but the amount of thinking highly varies, I suppose it's not an issue at all, but I thought I'd raise it anyway. --Silk Weaker 16:14, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Right, and also because it may be from one-time contributors with little knowledge of wiki, and little incentive to stay after their contribution becomes quickly/harshly deleted. People other than the author who might object to it might not be able to since the article have been deleted before they took notice...--Silk Weaker 16:29, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yeh good point, i'll leave the extremely bad ones for a couple of days &mdash; Skuld 16:30, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * That last argument there makes sense and im glad Skuld decided to go with it. I was once a new user (not long ago) and felt people were a bit harsh here... had my build been deleted in 15 minutes im sure i woulda been even more annoyed=P --Midnight08 16:42, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * So he wasn't sarcastic? =P But yes, that's the kind of thing I was thinking about, although I do understand that it might be at the expense of the wiki by slowing it down or annoying admins by making them go back and delete it later. I'm sure our admins are too hard working to complain about that though~ -Silk Weaker 16:46, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * I dunno if he was 100% sarcastic or only 50%.. there was sarcasm there, but i think he got the point and will TRY to take it easy=P You know Skuld=P--Midnight08 16:48, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Na, none (read: this is not sarcasm <-- nor that) 16:52, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * I hate to come out of the blue and interject on something that has nothing to do with me, but I want to comment on Silk Weaker's complaint here. I too have noticed that things will up and disappear, usually by the hand of an admin, which contradicts the Wiki concept of Administrate users, not content.  When an admin yanks content without giving the community the opportunity to come to a consensus on how valuable or correct that content is, then the entire concept of Wiki is defeated.  So long as someone has spent the time and effort on submitting content in the proper format, I think that content should stay until the USERS review it - not an admin.  That goes on a lot here, and it really, really turns me off from wanting to get further involved in the Wiki.--Ninjatek 16:57, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * The policy you cited is the reason why Skuld shouldn't be this quick with deletions, even thou the builds section doesn't follow all wiki policies. I know that one day seems like an eternity for someone like Skuld who is in the wiki most of the day, but for those users who come here once a day or two it is very weir to notice that the builds just disappear. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * I suppose the policy that most aptly applies is GW:DID or even GW:DEL. Officially the pages in question probably ought to stick around for more than an hour after a delete tag is posted. Note, I'm not complaining, just filling in those who don't know. If I need to complain, I'll be back. :-) --Zampani 22:01, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * In case it seems like I'm accusing Skuld of doing wrong, I would like to restate that I fully back-up Skuld's deletion, and in fact I asked for it myself.
 * However, I don't believe a delete tag has even been assigned to the build when Skuld deleted, and I guess it must be something along the lines of what Gem suggested-- I know Skuld is very eager to rid the wiki of its bad name.
 * However, I still think there should be some room, and I think 24 hours is a good period of time. 42 is acceptable, I guess, but more is probably too much, especially since I think deletion only applies in extreme cases anyway (ie. W/Me with Signet of Midnight). Perhaps a policy should be written for that?--Silk Weaker 03:09, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * /me peeks in, reads, and wanders off, mumbling "Damn build section, causing nothing but trouble ...". ;) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 03:19, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Honestly this was a one time thing that was necessary. We've slowly been reaching a point where our vetting equalled our build addition, but we had 400 builds and it was staying that way. I wouldn't have been bothered if all 400 builds were wiped out and started over and I had to reinstate my untested builds from scratch. It needed to be done. (Not a fifty five 05:17, 4 January 2007 (CST))


 * The frustrating thing is that I had a build in there for a few months, and I was checking it every day to see if anyone had playtested it. Periodically people would ask questions, and I was more than happy to answer them.  It received one up vote, and was probably on its way to "tested" status.
 * Then I was out for the holidays, and came back to find that it was gone. Not "Unfavored."  Not "Stubbed."  Just gone.  It's disappointing that this could happen on a Wiki.
 * Is there any possibility to getting it back? If some warning had gone out that this was happening, I would have copied it before the deletion.--Token Cleric 09:16, 4 January 2007 (CST)


 * What was the exact name of the build you're referring to? --Xasxas256 09:28, 4 January 2007 (CST)


 * Rt/any Spirit Nuker.--Token Cleric 17:51, 4 January 2007 (CST)


 * has been restored. Just be aware of the fact that there'd be very little activity on that build in the last 2 months and builds are not designed to sit in untested indefinately. If a build looks like it will never be vetted it should either be reworked or go into the user's namespace. Good luck! --Xasxas256 20:56, 4 January 2007 (CST)


 * Thank you.--Token Cleric 22:05, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Rt/D Spiritual Scythe
Hey, i have made a little change to this build in defensive way, can you look at it? With the slow attack rate of the scythe, i have 2 skills that are done in 3/4, and its recharge is also quick. Tell me if you got any good ideas. I just love an Rit with a scythe, i have been dealing around 100 dmg to warriors :D --InfestedHydralisk 15:22, 4 January 2007 (CST)


 * What? Did you even read my comment? It is a dead-end concept &mdash; Skuld 15:55, 4 January 2007 (CST)

awwwwww *puppy eyes and shows his sharp teeth* grrrr. ah well --InfestedHydralisk 16:08, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Got another double-reverter
Can you please handle this? — Jyro X 17:20, 4 January 2007 (CST)


 * I deleted it, that ok with you? &mdash; Skuld 17:21, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Um, no? I was requesting it not be deleted and reverted the delete notice which the author then re-reverted. So please restore it and handle the infraction of GW:1RV. — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 17:22, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Ah, sorry about that, I searched but for some reason it didnt find that page. :D User:Gandorf

Build vote?
Which build were you just attempting to vote on? It landed on the template at Template:Rate-a-build, so I reverted it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:53, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yeh, I noticed as soon as it submitted. Added it &mdash; Skuld 17:53, 4 January 2007 (CST)

The next time I decide to make a build using Spoil Victor or Blinding Surge I will call you. Until then I request that you withdraw your vote against my http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Build_talk:Me/any_Irritation_Mesmer build. If you wish to know why, read the discussion. It extremely difficult to believe that you tested the build at all. If you hadn't, your vote is null on the account of the voting template; wherein, votes may only be cast after the build has been actually tested.--Dhileas 19:52, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Doesn't say that in the policy. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 20:14, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Doesn't say it on the template either. People just interpret it that way (falsely) when someone makes a vote they don't like and they wanna accuse of non-testing. "Please do not vote on a build until you have actually tested it." does NOT read "DO NOT (note the absense of "Please") vote on a build until you have actually tested it." But, that's how some users interpret it if they get an unfavored vote. Even if someone never tests a build, but votes favored anyways, you'll never hear them complain. =) — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 20:36, 4 January 2007 (CST)

'Vetted' Build?
Hey Skuld, could I get you to take a look at Build:W/any Dwarven Battle Stance Warrior, as it's currently flagged as favored, though it hardly seems deserving of such status. Personally I'd just put it on unfavored, but not that sure how things work around here, so decided to aks you :) Thanks in advance.. Zerak-Tul 20:17, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * At the time that the build went "favored", the vote was 4-0 (although, one of those is the build author, and another is a hit-and-run whose only post is that one vote). Per our current build verring procedures, if unfavored gets ahead by three or more votes, then it can be changed to "unfavored", but it should not be reverted to "untested" unless a major rework is done to the build. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:29, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Skuld is a nub
Ok so I made a good comment about Balthazar's Pendulum (that it's a great counter to Signet of Judgement) and he deleted it twice but he won't delete the horrible notes for Chaos Storm (such that it is useful in 1v1 warrior fights). He hates me. :(
 * Who's the nub?? Signet of Judgment is one specific elite skill and you will rarely if ever see it on a Monk, even a Smiting one - everyone loves Shield of Judgment so much more. Who in their right minds takes a crappy elite just to counter another elite that you'll probably never see? If you take Balthazar's Pendulum to counter Signet of Judgment, you're a nub. Gg. Entropy 23:07, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Crap, my psychic powers are failing me, a thousand apologies for not deleting the chaos storm notes, it just didn't fly into my head after deleting the smite notes! Doom! &mdash; Skuld 05:21, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Oh Skuld, c'mon, you're letting us all down! Get back on the ball man! Need some more purging :) (ps: that note keeps getting added anyways...o_O) Entropy 05:23, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Score! 1 bad build deleted and you've been on 5mins. Go Skuld Go! Entropy 05:26, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * For the record, I deleted the chaos storm notes, as well as the Burning Speed ones ><...!
 * =P--Silk Weaker 09:39, 5 January 2007 (CST)

What ball? He was never on a ball, just some kind of cursade against everyone that don't think exactly as he does.--TheDrifter 18:32, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * QQ
 * Drifter - you were warned on your talk page about this already. Don't even think about continuing to try baiting another user.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:35, 5 January 2007 (CST)

What about the guy that called him a nub? Has he been yelled at too?--TheDrifter 20:04, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Not relevant. The other guy doesn't have a history of harrassment on this issue.  You were not part of this discussion, and chimed in with no purpose other than to further bait/harrass.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:07, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * yep, Skuld himself tracked the anon down, chased him and beat him up for it... check the history, was an anon=P Hard ta yell at an anon=) And even if he was he wasnt warned to chill already, u were... --Midnight08 20:08, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Is chiming in like that agisnt the rules? Beacuse if so there many people that do it to me all the time that I'd like to report.--TheDrifter 20:31, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * If they have a history of accusing you of making personal attacks without being able to provide supports for those claims, then baiting you to try to get you to do what they tried claiming had been done, then their actions may also be treated as harrassment which would require an administrator to look into it. I've tried being patient; but I am getting tired, so I will spell this out in no uncertain terms.  DROP THIS NOW.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:58, 5 January 2007 (CST)

(from Dhileas)
Perhaps an actual test of the build should be set into motion before biased and irrelevant judgment is placed...just a thought.--Dhileas 09:10, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * Stop dodging the point. You blanked other users' comments for your own biased wishes, this is not acceptable, please do not do it again. &mdash; Skuld 09:15, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Freshmint anyone?
ok, so i have been seeying people putting userboxes on your talk page, now i have made alot to (can see them on my userpage :o)...anyway, what you think of this? :D

--InfestedHydralisk 10:27, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * wtf lol ^_^ - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 11:08, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * I was say, "this user is lactating" ;) (Not a fifty five 14:39, 5 January 2007 (CST))
 * I had the idea from a dutch commercial, the dude took Freshmint and had very long nipples :p --InfestedHydralisk 14:52, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Crazy dutchmen... >.< (Not a fifty five 14:57, 5 January 2007 (CST))
 * I've seen that but I was sure it was about deoderant. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 15:00, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Nope, here's a page about it: http://www.duncans.tv/2006/super-nipples - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 15:03, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ow, it was Mentos yeah, gonna change the text :D --InfestedHydralisk 06:03, 6 January 2007 (CST)

W/E Starburst Warrior
I noticed, looking through the history, that most if not all the users that were involved recived warnings. One of the warnings to the user stated:

''I would have banned you if it were not for the participation of Skuld. Because Skuld is an established user and an admin. I chose not to mete out any penalties because I believe his participation must have seemed to validate your actions..''

However, I looked at Skuld's page an no such warning was issued. I must have not noticed it. If it exists, could someone please point me to it? If he was never issued a warning, please answer with a "no". ''' Before I am flamed, I would like to make it clear I am not asking Skuld to be reported, saying he shoudl have been, or anything. I am simply asking if he was and for a simple yes or no answer.'''--TheDrifter 20:11, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * I found the answer on my own, sorry for the inconvienciance.
 * Would you mind filling us in? --62.56.112.189 20:19, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Are you asking this as a series question? or are you trying to make fun of me liek so amny people do? I'm sorry if I sound stand-offish but there are so amny people that think Skuld is god and seem to hate me for thiking he is a jerk.--TheDrifter 20:30, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yes it was a serious question. --62.56.112.189 20:36, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * Anon - see Skuld's archives. I think it's in 16 or 17.  Also it has been discussed further at User_talk:TheDrifter
 * Drifter - think what you want. But I urge you to stop stalking Skuld.  As I posted before on your talk page - unless you can provide links supporting your claim that Skuld attacked you personally without being provoked, just drop it.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:37, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Why Skuld pwns kittens
Skuld is racist against trap monks he delteed like 3 different trap monk builds they all had core trap monk skills nothing wrong with them... 74.245.59.224 21:11, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * lol a trap monk racist? now ive seen Skuld get called everything=P--Midnight08 21:21, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Since when was a trap monk a race? We should coin a new term like...Neobuildist (Anti-New Build) --DragonWR12LB 02:17, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * Trap monk racist... wtf :P--[[Image:Star-small.png]] ~Edo Dodo~ [[Image:Star-small.png]] 08:58, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * Neobuildist ftw! Btw, I'm a 55 warrior racist. >=( — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 18:30, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * 55 Warrior? That's one thing I've never heard of :P--[[Image:Star-small.png]] ~Edo Dodo~ [[Image:Star-small.png]] 18:32, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * I Racist against all "55 Monks" that are not 105hp SoA Monks. Why would anybody use something different? (Narrow Minded)--> Baron [[Image:Baron.JPG|25px]] 19:11, 6 January 2007 (CST)

This is possibly the worst heading one could hope for showing up in recent changes, I should smite you for slander ;p &mdash; Skuld 19:19, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * Couldn't you just change the heading Skuld? It's your talkpage :D. Btw, to OP: the builds in question were complete garbage and badly deserved deletion; nearly every poster on the talk pages of those builds agreed. Entropy 19:45, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * He knows it sucked, why else would it be posted :p and fixed &mdash; Skuld 19:49, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * Hahah, I'll just have to post again so I can bump this heading in Recent Changes. Or maybe I should make a userbox for it...the sad thing is that now I want to try making R/Mo Trapper, just to prove the concept can be done well. Sigh. Entropy 19:58, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * Oath Lively was naomi trappers used to be popular pre-nf and 6vs6 ^^ &mdash; Skuld 20:01, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * Wouldn't a res orb make Lively redundant? Less portable but no skillslot needed...Hmm, though, why not add Frozen Soil to the combo, now you've got a real dangerous trapper/rez denier. After NF though...I think there must be some way to synergize Ranger trapper and some caster thingie...just not seeing it though. Entropy 21:07, 6 January 2007 (CST)

FoW Forest Burning Arrow Variant
Well, I've tested it.. it's based on a build that works, you said to scrap the old one and make notes, so go make a new build page for the Burning Arrow Variant or modify the current ? --Dazra 02:34, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * WIll do when I get back. --Dazra 13:44, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Vandalism
211.40.223.211 has been vandalizing the Barrage article.-- ~Edo Dodo~  09:57, 6 January 2007 (CST)

In the future, that is what the ban template is for. &mdash; Gares 10:02, 6 January 2007 (CST)


 * Thanks I kne there was a template but didn't remember name.

User Namespace
Am I allowed to do whatever I want (Exept put swear words OFC) in my user Namespace? Am I allowed to make as many pages as I want?-- ~Edo Dodo~  17:05, 6 January 2007 (CST)


 * Swear all you want, just don't do such an excessive amount of edits that it pushes regular edits off recent changes :P &mdash; Skuld 17:06, 6 January 2007 (CST)


 * OK sorry for the 7 things in my user namespace I put in for Delete, must be soooo annoying for you admis :P.--[[Image:Star-small.png]] ~Edo Dodo~ [[Image:Star-small.png]] 17:15, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Skuld is inexperienced
&rarr; Moved to Build talk:D/W Omigawa Of Balance