User talk:Jill Bioskop X

Earlier
Earlier contributions as 88.211.143.226 Jill Bioskop X 05:53, 20 November 2006 (CST)
 * Heya there welcome, if you want, you can have a non-external link like this: Special:Contributions/88.211.143.226. Isn't that exciting! :P (Yes I'm bored :P) --Xasxas256 06:00, 20 November 2006 (CST)
 * Thanks for the welcome, and for the tip. I tried to make an internal link first but all my variations failed.Jill Bioskop X 06:52, 20 November 2006 (CST)
 * No worries, if you're into wiki editing tips...check this out! --Xasxas256 19:03, 20 November 2006 (CST)

yo!
hi, you changed my heading on the spirit bomber from untested to favored. The build has since fallen from tested status (3 extra favored votes) and so I put it back in untested. Voting is a continuous process. I'm thus reverting your change (Not a fifty five 17:26, 2 February 2007 (CST))
 * Once tested, per GW:VETTING, the only allowance for reverting back to untested currently is "If the build has been sufficiently altered to render old votes invalid". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:36, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * you're actually incorrect on this matter. What is being referred to is if the build is changed and the votes are invalid, all the votes are ARCHIVED.  This is not the case I'm talking about.  It is current practice and supported by policy that if a vote falls from tested due to insufficient NUMBER in votes, it is removed and placed in testing with the votes NOT archived. (Not a fifty five 17:44, 2 February 2007 (CST))
 * Besides regardless, the change to the build is actually a nerf on boon of creation which hampers its energy mangement (and the addition of superior skills from nightfallNot a fifty five 17:47, 2 February 2007 (CST))
 * Nevermind, turns out rapta already did this in the dicussion and the revote turned it to unfavored unanimously. I think it's best this enters archived builds. (Not a fifty five 17:49, 2 February 2007 (CST))


 * Where are you seeing policy to say it can go back to untested? GW:VETTING states "Once a build is favored or unfavored, it can not be moved back into untested (exception: re-voting, see below). However it can still be moved to the other category, if enough people vote for the other category, such that this category now has 3 more people compared to the current one." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:51, 2 February 2007 (CST)


 * I see.. that's pretty gay lol. People generally stop voting once it reaches tested/untested, when votes are added, it's usually with very sharp disagreement to its placement.  I'm gonna call for a policy change on the build talk page.  In any case I've archived the build due to rapta's revote that I missed. (Not a fifty five 17:56, 2 February 2007 (CST))
 * I'm taking this to your talk page, so we don't spam Jill Bishop any further :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:59, 2 February 2007 (CST)


 * You leave the GuildWiki alone for 30 minutes, and wham, there's a war going on on your talk page. Well, my thoughts about the subject have already been summed up by Barek. From here I am going to leave it to admins anyway (glad I am not one) to talk/decide about this subject. I was just trying to follow the policy that I believed was in use. -- Jill Bioskop X 18:08, 2 February 2007 (CST)


 * Right, last comment, turns out you were right, but I'm actually gonna ask for the policy to be changed on the builds page. Six consecutive votes to change a build's status is just not cool! (Not a fifty five 18:11, 2 February 2007 (CST))

Nice Job
Hi Jill. Nice job so far, i think u ve inspired me to create my own too. Wish u luck with this.
 * Hey Jill are you here now? I m workin on my page and wanan ask you if you dont knwo how to let that TOC go off. I really dont like it there and cant do aything to it as it interferes me there. ThxZeratul 18:22, 8 February 2007 (CST)

Instable Moebius
Hey, I got your message. The reason I changed the build name was really just that instable is not a word. If the author really prefers to use a non-existent word for a slight pun, he/she is welcome to revert the name change. I just thought that using proper English was more practical. And, at the time, I was trying to fix up the names of some of the builds in the untested sections (i.e. X/Any --> X/any, misspellings, etc.) so I may have just assumed it was an typo especially considering the poorly written page. Defiant Elements 17:39, 21 February 2007 (CST)

fake/fun skills
Please create fake/fun articles only in your own user namespace (like so: User:Jill Bioskop X\BAMPH!). Those things do not belong into the main wiki namespace. Also, please don't add them to general categories like Category:Skill stubs, but rather to Category:GuildWiki humor. ;) I will move the articles you have created to your user space. --84-175 (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2007 (CST)
 * They were not meant as fun nor humor. Those are the Locked Skills found via manipulating the Skill Templates. I thought that putting them in the Category "Locked Skills" would be a added value to the GuildWiki's database. But if the admins don't agree with this I stop with it. - Jill Bioskop X 08:08, 22 February 2007 (CST)
 * I'm not sure whether I understand you correctly. What skill template did you manipulate in what way to find them? Are those skills somewhere in the game, but aren't actually used by any creature or availible to players? I don't see much of a point in documenting them then, at least not as regular skill articles. --84-175 (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2007 (CST)
 * See: Talk:Skill_Template_format, but it's not that big a deal for me, I'll just find something else to play with on the pages :) - Jill Bioskop X 09:18, 22 February 2007 (CST)
 * Oh, now I see. Funny thing that Anet left stuff like that in the game and that people actually found it. :) I still wouldn't create articles for those skills, but maybe mention them in a trivia section in the Skill Template format article. --84-175 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2007 (CST)