User talk:Rapta/Archive 3

/Archive1 /Archive2

Unfavoured
We're using now instead of the category &mdash; Skuld  18:58, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah. I keep forgetting, that's why I've been going over all of them starting with the Assassin ones. :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 19:00, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Movin'
Look I have to remake this section now, stupid archiving! :P I normally leave the redirect line and just add the del tag above, the redirect won't work but you can still see the delete tag. That way if the creator tried to reaccess their build they will see the link to the new name. It's just generally useful to leave it I'd say. Plus the norm is to leave an article in tact when adding +del, unless there's some particularly nasty vandalism. I know, I know, long explanation for a trivial thing! --Xasxas256 23:59, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, not sure if I interpreted it correctly, but I'm pretty sure I got it. Thanks for the heads up! =) &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:05, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Funny timing that I wrote the above while you were editing my RFA! Still another crisis averted :P I'd make a userbox saying "This user is the moved page redirect Nazi" but I don't like userboxes, plus if I had that I'd also need to make myself a "this user is probably crazy" box too! --Xasxas256 00:12, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Then this is perfect! =D &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:14, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

E/Mo Defensive Flag discussion
Just wanted to let you know that Fyren asked me to look at that build again as I'm the dumb sap who stuck his head into your and his disagreement there. ;) Anyway I've attempted to make a compromise here and was wondering if you would take a look at it.  --Rainith 22:11, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

Currently Testing the Viability of…
Hey, could you just take a glance at the above named section on my page and just give me a quick yeh or neh on my discussion page for each one? I know that you do a lot of testing for the wiki, so I don’t need anything long, just a quick glance over. Thanks in advance.--Azroth 14:45, 3 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Alright, quickly ran over the 4 builds and gave my two cents. Sort of tired and trying to type as little as I can, so forgive me if I sound a bit harsh or interrupted with my explanations. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:52, 3 September 2006 (CDT)
 * no problem. Thanks a lot for the input and I'll try to see what I can do with your 2 cents.  Thanks again.--Azroth 22:48, 3 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks again for your previous input. I think that I've been able to make some improvements since then, and also added some new builds.  So...could I trouble you for another few cents and get another quick review of these?  The link to the section on my user page is here, and the section on my talk page is here Thanks in advanceAzroth 16:50, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

PS-If a build name has two sets of attributes and skill bars under it, then the top one is just for reference. The second bar is the current one and the one I need comments on. The top bar is the original before major changes were made based on people’s comments. I just left it there so that people could see how far the idea has come thanks to the input of helpful people. PPS-The first 3 builds are about ready to be posted. I'm just waiting for your comments on them to make the decision of whether I should or not. Considering that your one of the best and most active testers on the wiki, it wouldn't make much sense to post something if you think it still looks like it needs a lot of work. But of you have time, please read the other comments on the builds, as they contain some relevant info. Thanks again.--Azroth 16:50, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Voting on builds
It seems you have an opinion on every build anyone has submited (which is fine), but please do not vote on builds when your "vote" should belong in discussion. I have always found some of your unfavored votes dubious at best but this really is quite atrocious. In future please review your thoughts before posting them in an unfavored vote. --Jamie  04:06, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree with Jamie. I think your effort to help vet the untested builds is commendable but misplaced. I don't think we need someone to just go through all the builds and cast a vote, any vote, well-inofrmed or not. This will not help speed up the process, only subvert it. I think you should scan the untested category, pick a few builds you would be interested in implementing and then take those on. Try them alone or with friends, then report back. --Karlos 05:26, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * It's hard, even with the removal of Nightfall builds the untested builds cat seems to be in an eternal traffic jam. I think there's just simply not enough testers to build submitters, if every build was comprehensively tested before being vetted or unfavoured the untested builds category would double every week :P I dunno I could be wrong, I've only been awayish for a week and I feel totally out of it, new deletion policies, signing deletes, build vetting processes, ways to keep articles, bleh, I don't know what's going on. Seems like the wiki is like a final year uni subject, if you fall behind just a little, you'll never catch up. I've been trying to only make the odd obvious edit but heck I went to just remove the untested build category from a user page then found Skuld reediting, apparently we nowiki the whole template now or it's "confusing". 7 days and I'm out of touch :(


 * Anyway back on track, I don't have a problem with people voting on builds that they haven't field tested. Rapta is straight up and accountable, he didn't just vote it down with no accompanying reason. If the reason wasn't great then this should quickly become apparent, as was the case here. I guess there's some users I trust more than others to do a build evaluation without testing it but as long as a reason is given I'm ok with it, perhaps more discussion should have occured but I'm ok with it in pricipal. But then again waiting for someone to reply can take ages, often it's hard to generate build discussion.


 * I've been saying for a while that I don't envy our build patrollers, they've got a tough job and frequently come under attack because nobody likes to see their build get an unfavoured vote. From the limited Watchlist/RC patrolling I've done this past week it looks like Xeeron is getting more stressed out, I'm not surprised that we don't have many build testers, it's a tough gig. --Xasxas256 05:55, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Err was that so obvious? I guess I am in line for a wikibreak, hehe. But I want to see the new builds policy through first. --Xeeron 06:04, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Trying to stay optimistic
Hey, I asked if you would take another look at my page in the "Currently Testing the Viability of…" article above, but I never got a response. Is this because you didn't see it or are you just ignoring me? I really hope it’s the first one. Please let me know so I know if I should look elsewhere for a quick review or if I can count on you. Thanks a lot.--Azroth 20:23, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Rapta is currently having a break, his last edit was on the 6th. --Xeeron 04:45, 16 September 2006 (CDT)
 * oh, dang.--Azroth 14:16, 16 September 2006 (CDT)

Shocking Flurry
Could you tell me how exactly it is hindered against warriors?-Onlyashadow 10:10, 19 September 2006 (CDT)