User talk:Rapta/Archive 3

/Archive1

New users
I reckon sometimes you can just tell a vandal from a new user, right off the bat (before you put a ban tag on) Kering's edits to me looked like a person new to wikis floundering around. I reckon sometimes you should just temper the harshness of your words a little. Problem is that you have a bit of a knockabout style of writing which is cool, but new users don't know your writing style. Look this is just a very general comment to say you should probably just be a little bit more careful when dealing with anons and new users because it's sometimes it's easy to take things the wrong way, especially if you don't know the person. After all even older users that know each other can get it wrong too sometimes, take Sarah and Gares last night for example!

This is a minor issue to do with a very small proportion of your edits, you do tonnes of good work here and you edit a lot of build pages. Really lets face it, there's a lot of crap builds submitted here and it's going to be hard not to phrase it just like that sometimes! Still we should always try to be helpful to our new contributors, which leads me back to the original thing about banning users, our admins are not very heavy handed with the bans (and haven't been for some time, I think this was confirmed on this discussion) and us user's don't slap ban tags on except when fighting an obvious vandal. Sorry for the long post but it's pretty quiet at the moment at work so I had some time on my hands ;) For all the editing a lot of us do on the wiki we don't often get much feedback so I thought you might find this useful. Yes I could have just said "I reckon you could possibly be a bit more helpful to new users" and left it at that but I had 10 minutes to kill before lunch! --Xasxas256 23:58, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
 * You're absolutely right. I did act a bit too quickly on that, especially with the ban thing. Although I have to say, you're quite the writer. :) &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:03, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah well I've got nothing but The Da Vinci Code to read at the moment and I think it's too heavy for reading during short breaks. Normally I GuildWiki edit all day long at work but there wasn't much happening and the "tasks" I've got to do on the wiki weren't worth starting, so I figured I'd drop you a line ;) Actually contrary to what the above long comment may suggest, my main problem with you is your sig, I hate it! I have no idea what that thing is but it somehow still annoys me each time I see it!! --Xasxas256 00:12, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * It was my friend's suggestion. He was looking at this wiki and saw that a few other people had "special" sigs, while I was using the boring old default one. So he randomly popped onto Google and told me to use this pic. Such a great story, eh? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:14, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * No what I wanted to hear was "although the picture is inherently annoying (maybe the picture doesn't annoy you, probably it just annoys me but still) it's symbolises the struggle to freedom of ." So then the picture would annoy me less, saying that you don't even know what it is it's just something your friend dug up, that makes it even more annoying! Deepen my suffering why don't you! I hate you now, where's that ban template when you need it!!! :P :P --Xasxas256 00:26, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * What if I used the almighty MSPaint to invert the colours? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:28, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Ha ha, I don't know, I mean it's your sig so only edit it you reckon it'll be an improvement. Oh and while I'm being serious, I should mention that you took my initial, overly long critism very well, so you're in my good books even if your sig isn't! --Xasxas256 00:32, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I was being sarcastic, but anyways, good to hear/see/read that. :) I'm pretty much done for today, so I'll leave Aberrant to flood the Recent Changes page by himself. :D &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:33, 20 July 2006 (CDT)

Mo/R Shiverpeaks Runner
Thank you very much for improving on Mo/R Shiverpeaks Runner article. The video for the Illusory Forge Runner is still in progress. :D. Ty, again. --Luobailong 16:14, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Heh, no problem. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 19:19, 20 July 2006 (CDT)

Archiving
Just a heads up, Style and formatting :) &mdash; Skuld  03:30, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I... forgot the underscore? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 11:35, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Or the space, w/e Archive1 < Archive 1 &mdash; Skuld 11:37, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Argh. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 11:37, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

Spirit Nuker, aka Doom and Boom
re Rt/any Spirit Nuker: I agree with your "Needs work" vote on build that was available when you wrote it. I have been testing it for a while, and I recently made some changes that I think improve its effectiveness. At your earliest convenience, please try it out again and comment on what you think of it. Thanks.--Token Cleric 05:56, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

linkin'
Normally I wouldn't touch another person's comment but I removed your red link from Talk:A/any The Critical Palm because people do patrol Special:Wantedpages, and that just makes their job harder ;) --Xasxas256 23:15, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Good enough reason for me! &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 23:16, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
 * It's kind of ironic because I've added a red link on this page (although it wasn't red when I initally added it). :) --Xasxas256 23:20, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

Harassin
It looks like I only jump on your talk page to harass you about something...oh well. Have you finished with Me/any Power Block Mesmer? Your last edit was almost a month ago and that's one reason I don't think the Work in progress template should be used for articles in the main namespace. Also it goes against the collaborative nature of wikis, nobody owns an article. If you desperately want something to not be edited by others, you should move/copy it to your namespace in my opinion. So please remove the template or finish your testing...and then remove the template! --Xasxas256 03:10, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Now that I can see you're back on...Bump! --Xasxas256 23:02, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry, missed that comment completely. :P
 * And yes, believe it or not, I have been experimenting with it for the past month. I'm determined to find a proper build for the (seemingly) ever-useless Power Block. It's just that I'm not having much luck with the build. If you prefer it, I could remove the template, or you could go ahead and remove it. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 23:07, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * We could have a race...I'm pretty quick, legs like steal springs you know. It just seems kind of odd that we have to leave an article alone for a month while you test it; even though I know that it's all that drives you these days, you haven't slept for a month, your room in total darkness except for the glowing cryptic Power Block notes written in blood, peeing in a bucket to save time, all the time the secret is so close but always teasing you, but even so... :P And if you're not living in conditions like that then you're clearly not working hard enough! Get back to work! ;)--Xasxas256 23:17, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, removing that gives me some time to stare at my new 20 inch LCD for a few days :) &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 23:20, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not sure I understand... --Xasxas256 23:25, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Less testing, more staring. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 23:26, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Can't you do both? Isn't that the whole point of buying a new monitor so GW (both GWars and GWiki) is easier? Or was I actually on the money above as in you do your GWiki testing in blood as opposed to in game (hench you'll be staring at a monitor instead of the glowing wall)? :P I guess I'm probably still not understanding! --Xasxas256 23:30, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, it's worth a try! &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 23:31, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

unfavored
need 3 votes either way to favor/unfavor. --Honorable Sarah 08:38, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Not what I've seen, 2 is usually enough to get rid of a completely useless build. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 18:45, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Movin'
Just a quick note, remember on the GuildWiki moving is more akin to copying because the old article name will still exist as a redirect. When pages are moved because they're incorrectly named (e.g. Team - "Steel Wall" Deep Group) as long as you've checked that nothing links there you can usually +del them (and I suppose you could put a note on the build's creator's page so say it's been moved and this is how we name builds). --Xasxas256 22:48, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Ok, got it. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 17:39, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Imagine that my head is appearing out of the clouds and saying "remember" kind of like Mufasa in the Lion King because you're forgetting :P --Xasxas256 20:59, 13 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I knew this was coming when I saw your message, and thought "oh crap, he beat me to it!". Forgot to swallow my Cyanide Pill! &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:03, 13 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah I guess I am some kind of not deleting moved pages Nazi...probably the bad kind :P --Xasxas256 21:19, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * But it's obviously working, you did one while I wrote the above comment!!! --Xasxas256 21:20, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * And here I thought you only replied because you saw me do that. :o &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:21, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Nah it was actually just good timing but I'll be honest, the second one I wrote mostly because I was hoping to give you an edit conflict! ;D *Fingers crossed it did!* --Xasxas256 21:26, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * It caught me in the middle of editing N/any spike leecher. Accursed orange box! &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:28, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Question, why bother moving Talk:Mo/E Divine Spirit Spammer to Talk:Mo/E Divine Spirit Spammer/Archive 1? --Xasxas256 01:52, 19 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I've been doing that sort of stuff for a while. I guess it's just to archive the older discussion pages, so that they won't be posted on (since the game has been updated since then) by newer GuildWiki contributors to say "that's not correct!". &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 11:41, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

Votes
I think it's flat out wrong to cast votes in other peoples' names even if their comments imply they favor or do not favor a build. Doubly so when you're doing it only in builds to give them a second vote (with your vote being the other) and then immediately adding the tested/unfavored template. In other cases, you've added your own vote to give a build a second favored/unfavored (for a total of two votes) and immediately slapped on tested/unfavored, which is nearly as bad.

Don't vote for others. Don't immediately take two votes as a result. --68.142.14.42 00:10, 15 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Two votes unfavored, especially in our current state with the Untested category, is perfectly enough to make them unfavored. Additionaly, I've only done that to builds that are consisted of obvious crap. And I'm not sure there is a policy to whether votes should be moved, I've seen that occur before on occasion. I believe there should be a vote on this. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:09, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i'm going to have to agree with one-who-shall-not-register up there. moving votes is unacceptable, and moving a making a build favored/unfavored with one vote and one questionable vote is flat wrong. if it's obvious crap get me or skuld or someone else to chime in. better to have three solid votes then any questionable circumstances. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:56, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I said nothing about two votes being insufficient. It also doesn't matter if something is obvious crap or not.  I agree that the ones you threw into favored and unfavored should be how they are but doing what you did is subverting the process.  --68.142.14.61 17:36, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Alright then, I'll leave a message on your Talk page if I see a build that needs to go to "the dump". :) &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:39, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Help for a Newbie...
Hey, would you mind if I used your page as an outline for my own?Azroth 17:42, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * You'd have to ask Helena about that. :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 20:06, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Ok, thanks.--Azroth 20:31, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Damn you Rapta =)
Despite disagreeing with you alot i'm startin ta like yer sense o humor and the way you react ta me... Thx for the welcome btw, eventually my page ill look as cool as all of the rest of the regulars (its good to have wiki access at work), and yes, i will do what i can to either save or devastate the unfavored builds =) --Midnight08 00:39, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Wiki is good for the kids! &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:40, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

lol just saw the 55 necro fix/ban lol the funniest thing about it was yer initial reaction (oh, come on, that's not even funny! and the Very un-funny use of words. Oh yeah, and vandalism)... Sarcastic Humor FTW=) lol --Midnight08 00:50, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

removing votes
do not remove votes, reguardless of the time frame. favor/unfavor are evolving categories, and should be allowed to evolve. --Honorable Sarah 13:02, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Tell them to make a new votes section then. There's no point voting on what has already been passed, other than to stir up controversy. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:03, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * the build has not changed, these are votes on the existing incarnation, and should be considered with the same value. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:10, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The major change is that the build has already been approved. Once approved, there needs to be a viable case for it to be downgraded to testing level. Not just because a few people decided to vote half a month late. Besides, those opinions are not viable ones. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:12, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * if they're not viable, then argue them, these votes do not change the status of the build (5 favor, 4 unfavor), and apply to the current revision. there is no time limit on build votes. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:30, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, you will see that it has been argued by one NieA7 that he has placed a vote, then argued that the build should be put towards Unfavored. Also, you will see that I have already argued to why they are not viable. Either way, in any case, there should be a new section (for example, the one I made) to whether a build should be deemed Untested or Tested. A vote is complete once a build has been vetted. Call it whatever you want, there should be a new vote if there is a new case. No use using an old vote tally. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:36, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * unless something happens to invalidate those votes (such as a skill change) there's no reason to restart, and no reason to bar new votes simply because they are not rabid wiki-addicts like you or i. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:39, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * What? Let's knock down President Bush then! My guess is that the votes have changed since 2004, anyways...
 * The point is, the first vote is complete. They are kept there as a reference to why they were voted to Tested in the first place. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:41, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * presidents are presidents until a specific term ends. builds are favored until unfavored, that implies a dynamic tracking, including open ended votes. i've changed my vote several times on build articles. consider W/E Charge Sword. it was very nearly unfavored, then 9-10 people voted favored. if there was one more unfavored vote, none of those would have counted. alternativly, in an open ended vote, all those votes would count reguardless of how many users were quick on the edit button. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:51, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, if there was a surge of 10 votes, it would have been able to be placed into a tested status anyways. That's 10 votes with viable opinions. Not two non-viable votes. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:53, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Since I'm just too tired to argue, do w/e you want. Go ahead and put the votes back. This isn't really a subject that I'm too engaged in being involved in anyways. I just edit and write builds (paraphrasing: I fear WikiStress). &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:59, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not sure if this has to do with N/Mo Minion Master or with another build, but if it is, I have no problem with it going back to "untested", NOT because NieA7 voted against it, but because the original vote was flawed (due to my not knowing that the Author's vote was basically worthless). However, in other cases, I'd argue that once a build has been tested, it should take 3 more unfavoured votes than favoured to overturn the original decision.   But hey, that's me.  Who wants to see builds flicker between favoured and unfavoured that quickly?  --Spot 14:34, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Voting for other people
Akin to the above, you are committing a grievous misjudgement when you manipulate votes, such as Talk:N/Rt Accursed Flesh. Please, do not presume to know what other people would or would not vote. In this example, Skuld is more than capable of speaking for himself, but that is beside the point. The main issue is this: you are messing with the voting process and thereby tampering with a process that the wiki considers a basic tool of decision-making. This is the third time on your talk page that others have had to comment on your practice.

In other words: please do not mess with votes, ever. It is quite clear that your judgement in this department is lacking, so please be so kind as to leave it to others in the rare event that manipulation is needed. -- Bishop [ rap|con ] 14:28, 26 August 2006 (CDT)