User talk:Skuld14148

 Wednesday 28 August  UTC /Archive 1, 2, 3, 4

Statistics
Hey Skuld, can you do a favor for me? every day, somewhen between 10am gmt and 2pm gmt I write down the selling and buying prices of ectos and shards at the trader. I'm out of town, and just realised I might be back too late tomorrow. can you check them for me, or get another guildie to do it? [Oh, and I don't belive the first price he shows. I press "show quote" and write that number down] Foo 08:40, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'll try :)

Thanks. In a few days, When I'll have a month of date, I'll consider making myself an article with it, and the analasis. Foo 09:21, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Congrats
Let me be the first to say congrats and I can already see you're already fixing up the main page using your new found powers, let's hope you keep using them for good :) --Xasxas256 11:15, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thank you Xasxas :) Maybe I won't delete your user page when you're asleep :P &mdash; Skuld  11:18, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Sooooo now's not a good time to mention the war? :P Well actually I am off to bed, now we'll see if my user page still exist when I get up :) No in all seriousness well done mate, well deserved mate. --Xasxas256 11:27, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Congrats, Skuld! Very much deserved for all you've done to support the Wiki! --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:30, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Long overdue. Congrats.  =)  --Rainith 19:28, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * /congrats--Xis10al 20:02, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Congrats sir. :) --Karlos 20:37, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * +1 for Skuld. - Jack  20:44, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * +2 for Skuld! Foo 01:17, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Ta kids ^^ &mdash; Skuld  02:12, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Grats! Some fresh blood for the admin circle =) --Xeeron 09:30, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

Weird, I am sure I congratulated you allready. Maby I got an edit conflict and didn't notice. Oh well, congratulations and great job this far! -- 09:49, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

Salute! Well earned! -- 10:08, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

Thanks :) &mdash; Skuld  10:16, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

They made you a sysop? Man, this place is going all to hell! ;) &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 17:50, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Hehe watch out :p &mdash; Skuld  01:56, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

shhhhh!
It's a registry manipulation. mail me if you wanna know more. this comment will self destruct in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. Foo 11:04, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I know where to get it, guru has a few threads on it. I don't need to bother as I can just get someone else to hold my stuff and I don't use acct #2 any more anyway :p &mdash; Skuld  11:11, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * They removed it cause it's against ULA or something. Foo 11:30, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Babel
I updated the kurzick babelbox so It would look nicer, you might want to update it on your babel page. --Draygo Korvan 11:54, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks for the info :) I deleted it, that was just for use before pan put in the notcat thing and I forgot about it &mdash; Skuld  12:14, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

changing link in unsigned template
Unless you forsee a problem, I'm going to go ahead and change the unsigned link in the unsigned template to our own page instead of guildwikis. I think it would be much better to use our own article to something that ends up getting linked to quite often. --Draygo Korvan 14:34, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Sure :) &mdash; Skuld  14:36, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Excellent! Yet another item off my to-do list!  I had been wanting to change that myself.  I see no problem applying wikipedia policies where we lack our own; but I see it as bad form to actively link to their policies from templates that get re-used often. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 15:00, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks, now to flesh it out =X --Draygo Korvan 15:02, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Deletions
You mean this: 18:23:30 (Deletion log) [Skuld (190×)] Enhanced RecentChanges is a blessing.

For your consideration
Don't know if you're at all interested in this, but I'd appreciate your feed back here about this. --Rainith 00:42, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Request you look at a talk page
Can you take a look at the article and related talk page for Slash command? As I mention in the talk page, I can see potential reasoning for it; but I added the delete tag as the article was re-created by the original author the day after Rainith deleted it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Forgotten Fan
why did you remove it from gameupdate notes? Was it actually added in an earlier update instead? - 05:14, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I didn't intentionally, I think I was editing at the same time as Bishop though &mdash; Skuld  06:05, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Oy, I haven't touched the article at all, leave me out of this. :P -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 06:08, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Fast deletion of build
You deleted Mo/W Cyclone 55 in less than 24 hours after the article was posted. Please be a little less quick with the delete button. Builds sometimes evolve from bad to good builds and that build was not an outrageously horrible build, just a standart bad one. The original author might not even have had the time to log in again and react to the comments. --Xeeron 13:13, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Oni weapons..
Ok, I am miffed because we had a discussion about the Oni weapons, which you apparently missed. We established beyond a doubt that they do NOT drop from Oni exclusively. So, can you please NOT revert the revert I am going to do now unless you talk about it? --Karlos 15:26, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Sure. &mdash; Skuld  15:29, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Ironwing Long/FLatbow
The DO DROP in the deep, a guildfriend got 2 of them trough a chest in THE DEEP!!!
 * Yeh, those are regular gold drops though. The green end-game items you edited are available in the Divine Path only &mdash; Skuld  04:30, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Site Support
Well apparently they're protected because:
 * 20:33, 15 October 2005 Gravewit protected "GuildWiki talk:Site support" (ooer)
 * 15:18, 15 October 2005 Gravewit protected "GuildWiki:Site support" (duh)

Also you posted on the protected talk page so normal plebs like me can't reply there, don't you remember what it's like down here mighty one? :P --Xasxas256 08:45, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You know he did that to rub it in. It's the complex of the neaveu rich. :) --Karlos 04:44, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Long bow
You deleted Long Bow but forgot to check what still links there! It's ok I corrected the links, hoods got your back! --Xasxas256 20:18, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks :) &mdash; Skuld  06:37, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Unfavored or Outdated?
I think we need to group builds that drop OUT of favor due to an ArenaNet update, or change to the game seperatly from builds that were vetted negatively originally. Probably create a section called Archaic Builds/Archived Builds and dump them in there. It perhaps can be a subcatagory of Unfavored builds as well. Just thinking about to better organize some of that jumble. --Draygo Korvan 14:36, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Good idea. If any of the MM builds are left most of those can go in there &mdash; Skuld  14:37, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Alrighty! But Archaic Builds or Archived Builds (or even something else, hrm..) --Draygo Korvan 14:40, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * that makes a lot more sense to me then "unfavored". unfavored always seemed to smell a bit of the pvp metagame, rather then concreet changes to the game. someone, and it'll probably be me, should go through the unfavored/archaic builds and mark why they're out of favor/historical. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:56, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I named the cat Archived because it seems a bit nicer while using Archaic is a bit negative sounding to me.--Draygo Korvan 15:00, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

Seeing as how you answer most of my questions, I'm just going to post this one here. I have a couple of questions about my N/Me Minion Thief build. First question, after making a build, is it okay to go back and change skills. I play this build all the time in Alliance Battles with great success, but I'd love to go back in and substitute Wail of Doom for Backfire, not that I've playtested it alot more. Second question, when making a build, is it assumed that the creator has playtested or do I actually have to post in the voting section of the build that I have tested and find the build favorable? Thanks for your help.--&mdash; xis10al   15:32, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * last question first: creator votes don't count, and it is expected the creator playtested and favors the build unless otherwise stated on the build or talk page. why post it if you hadn't played it?
 * modifing a build before it is voted favored/unfavored is fair game, changing it after testing should change it back to untested, and start a new vote cycle. you can avoid this retest by placing your changes under a ==variations== heading --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 17:14, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks Sarah, that's what I figured, but didn't want to go changing things without first making sure.--&mdash; xis10al  [[Image:Xis10al_sig_icon.jpg]] 18:48, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

Full stop please
Ok, please have a (short) full stop on placing builds in categories and moving them around and deleting them, since we first need to decide a few things:

1. When will builds be deleted?
 * Only if they are merged or very close to existing builds
 * Also if they are deemed particulary bad

2. What will happen to builds that are nerfed?
 * Place in the same category as builds that are deemed bad (but not deleted)
 * Place in a different category

'''If on second point on 1. wins, how will builds get deleted?'''
 * Through the "normal" process of using the delete template
 * By including a third bullet point delete in the vote that is placed on the talk page of each new build

Please lets come to an aggrement on those 3 points before proceeding, or much chaos will be created. --Xeeron 17:42, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * There isn't enough interest in the voting/testing bits :( builds get left there for weeks without being touched. Also ppl don't always follow the bullets rated section but you can get the idea from tthe talk page &mdash; Skuld  17:47, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * That problem always exists, people are much happier to submit new build than test them. But we still have to find a way to deal with it and especially decide how to deal with bad builds (delete or place in category). --Xeeron 17:50, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * My big gripe is that builds are thrown into unfavored without anyone testing. Unfavored votes are a dime a dozen on some builds, but that doens't mean that those who place unfavored votes actually tested the build.--&mdash;  xis10al  [[Image:Xis10al_sig_icon.jpg]] 18:42, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Consider the flowchart: [[Image:Build-Flow-proposed-sarah.jpg|right]]

1 and 2 are explained in the picture. there should be three options on the vote tab. Stub, i.e. this build is not completed, or not ready to be tested, favor, i.e. this is a good build, keep it, delete, not worth the time. once favored, it can't be deleted. --Honorable Sarah 22:49, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Nice chart hehe.
 * However, I dont think we need a vote for "stub". Most of the time it is very clear that a build is a stub, anyone can just put on the build stub tag. The issue is: Do we want to outright delete all builds that are not good enough for tested builds. A build might have a nice idea, it is just not working as it is. Deleting the build would delete the idea as well. Having the unfavored category gives us the change to distinguish between builds that are outright crap and those that are ok, but not good enough for tested builds. --Xeeron 05:27, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I would say that any build page that was rejected (not via Anet nerf) BUT had lots of good information on why it doesnt work (valuable discussion) should be dumped into the unfavored catagory, but make sure it is removed out of the PvE and PvP catagories as well so the only place to access it is the unfavored catagory. This way we wont lose some previous discussion deemed valuable, to help avoid resubmittal of some poor builds. --Draygo Korvan 08:41, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * if a build is good but not working up to standards, isn't that, by definition, a stub? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:36, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm saying if a build is bad, but the discussion about the build is informative the chart should flow to the unfavored cat. Deleting should really be reserved for duplicates, moves etc...--Draygo Korvan 10:37, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * A build stub would be a build where the skills are listed in plain text. Or the attributes are missing. However a build can be perfectly fine in terms of presentation (so it is no longer a stub), but still be bad. That is what the category unfavored builds is for. --Xeeron 11:33, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * builds are pages with a purpose, to show a complete and working skill and attribute set in a way that explains it's function to players unfamilar with it. stubs are pages that need work to accomplish their purpose.
 * if a build is super powerful, unique, but writen like a grade school homework asignment, it's a stub. no one is disputing that. but if a build page is beautiful, has tables, graphs, charts, a long strategy section but the build doesn't work in game, it's still a stub, because it needs work to accomplish it's objective.
 * on the other hand, if it's not posible to make that build work, then it's never going to accomplish that objective, and should be deleted.--Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:10, 22 June 2006 (CDT)

Stubs are pages that need content added to become working. But a build may be bad without any lack of content. Therefore bad builds are not really stubs. --Xeeron 17:01, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Speaking of not possible to make it work, how far does that apply? to me the R/Me Interrupter is never going to work because it has no RtW or FW and won't be able to interupt 1 second casts without randomly spamming interupts and interupting by accident &mdash; Skuld  12:13, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * there now, variation added to address that specific questions. as for the more general question, it depends on how specific the build is. in my opinion, E/Me Magnetic Channeler will NOT work without Rajazan's Fervor and a HRT/+1 focus, the margin is just too slim. however, the author clearly made it work without, since he states no specific weapon set is required. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:51, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Only that Skuld is dead wrong in his opinion that you need RtW or FW to interrupt 1s casts. The flight time for a Recurve bow is .5 seconds, draw time .25, if the ranger places himself a half an aggro circle away, the flight time drops to .25, which is a .5 total delay, which can be easily used to interrupt 1s casts. In addition such a ranger does not have to focus on fast cast ele's or monks, but elementalists and necromancers who have spells with significant cast duration. I dont think Skuld is an experienced ranger =P. Crip shot rangers interrupt OFTEN without RtW or FW. --Draygo Korvan 13:57, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * see, this is why i added as variations, with the tag "for easier". not calling anyone wrong, just offering the option to those who read the page looking for pointers. a new ranger is going to need RtW. it took me about a week to learn to use interupts right, and i'm still unreliable at it, but i can hold a Siege Wurm down. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:21, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I wasnt refuting you Sarah, just Skuld (who actually voted the build down over that issue). PvPers however perfer to have efficient skill bars. If you are adding a skill in order to supplment something that can be covered with player skill, you are disadvantaging yourself in the long run. Interrupting 1⁄4 casts even with RtW and FW up, is still impossible without lots of luck (human reaction time is about ~.3 at its fastest.)--Draygo Korvan 14:25, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I was attempting to prevent a "your wrong!" "NO YOUR WRONG!" situation, but i see you have Ward Against Compromises active. ;) --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:49, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Huh? I dont see this disagreement degenerating in that way. I dont think you are wrong for adding it as a varient, I welcome it. But if someone posts a mistruth (like saying it is absolutly impossible to interrupt 1s casts without RtW or FW active) I think it is my duty to correct that misstatement. Specifically the phrase: is never going to work because it has no RtW or FW and won't be able to interupt 1 second casts... when it is quite possible to do without randomly spamming interrupts. --Draygo Korvan 14:57, 22 June 2006 (CDT)

user talk page revert?
Shouldn't a user have the freedom to decide if they want to blank their own talk page? - 04:44, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I never have, but honestly, I always assumed that I could delete stuff on my own talk page.--&mdash; xis10al  [[Image:Xis10al_sig_icon.jpg]] 05:38, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Abuse of power. Nerf him! :) --Karlos 06:27, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I thought we had a rule for no blanking of talk pages? That should be upheld in all cases, not just blanking of, question of actions for example. &mdash; Skuld  06:32, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * If there isn't a rule against blanking your user talk page, then one should be created. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 06:51, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No blanking unless with good reason(Example your talk page is sized over 5Mb and half of it is just some "no-need" pictures and the like. -_-Nhaska 07:02, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Archiving: /Archive 3 &mdash; Skuld  08:06, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I've never heard of a rule against blanking own talk pages. It's courteous to archive things, but I don't seen anything wrong with blanking. - 08:24, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree with PanSola here. Never heard of such a rule. And I would oppose it if one was to be created. Users should have full control over their own user and talk pages. After all, it is ment to send messages to that particular user, whatever that user does with them is up to him. If he doesnt want the message to stay there, he doesnt have to let it stay there, all information is recoverable in the history anyway. --Draygo Korvan 08:45, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * So anyone is free to 'clear their record' if they want? It's no use to document evil things done by others on my user page either. How can we remember if somoene has been harmfull earlier if we need to consider his actions in some massive debate? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 09:04, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * People have memories, in addition user contributions page comes in quite handy. Most vandals dont actually contribute. Also I dont think it is allowed to blank if there is a ban notice on the persons user page, as well as that user is not allowed to remove the ban notice. Also, dont forget the Block Log, which is far more handy than past 'evidence' in determining if someone is a returning vandal. --Draygo Korvan 09:19, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * But if a user makes small mistakes all the time it is good to see it. Usually these are caused by one being new, but not always. Oh well, it's hard to make a good rule for this. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 09:29, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * So far as I know, the history of the talk page is still in tact, there is no way of blanking that unless the page were physically deleted. Blanking a user's own talk page is fine in my book. --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 09:37, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It makes little sense to put the burden of keeping track of my evils on me anyways. If you want to keep track of something wrong I have done, save it somewhere under your user namespace; the search feature will find it.  What's the difference between blanking my talk page vs archiving it, and stealth-blanking my archive when no one is watching? - 18:25, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the end result of my dispute with Deldda Kcarc is that really forcing a user to maintain discussions he does not like in his user page is not a good idea. For this I propose two different solutions.
 * If the discussion is about a specific article, and the user blanks it, then take it to the talk page of that article (which probably should have been where it goes any way). I believe this is the case with PanSola's discussion with that user.
 * If the discussion is about the user himself or his conduct (like my note to Deldda) and it is addressing issues that other users seem to be interested in, we can have two approaches here... a) Have an admin restore the thread and mark it as "unblankable" until the talk is abandoned (say, no on edits it for a week). or b) (less intrusive) develop a place for these kinds of threads to carry on even if the user wants them off his page. Let's figure this out and move forward. We cannot force people to be honorable with their talk pages and we cannot put silly rules to force people to let anyone come to their pages and say any garbage. --Karlos 19:57, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * a would jsut be inviting trouble, so I support b. - 21:54, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I support b. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 03:51, 23 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think we all favor B. Now, the question is, where do we put these discussions? And how can they be easily indexed/browsed? --Karlos 03:58, 23 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Create a nice page for this purpose in the GuildWiki namespace? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 03:59, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * User:/Talk about /. It needs not be centralized, each person B may keep a copy of what they want to hold down person A.  A simple search on person A's user name wiill return this page as matching article name, if you are searching in the user name space. - 04:02, 23 June 2006 (CDT)


 * So, the official position is: We don't care. And if any users want the thread to stay, they should move it to their walk page? --Karlos 04:47, 23 June 2006 (CDT)


 * That is a position that I would support. I doubt most people check my talk archives just to browse for mistakes anyways, so effectively it ends up being the same.  Anyone who want to quote another person's previous behavior pattern has the burdon of organizing the information (though should also have a link to the original history so it's easy to check the thread isn't fabricated).  Besides, if 80% of teh fights/disagreements/mistakes I'm involved in were resolved via the individual article's talk pages, then getting those history organized is much harder then browsing through my user talk history, and NOBODY care's about that.  80% of my bad record wouldn't be on my talk page in the first place.  So what's the point of caring specifically about the blanking of my user talk page when it's still centrally kept in the history? - 04:57, 23 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well I'm amazed it got this far... --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 05:12, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Glyph Page
You added a considerable amount to the Glyph page and no Bishop has slated it for cleanup to look like ward pages etc. I suggest you clean it up yourself as to not get offended. I'm pretty sure people can click on the links to the Glyph pages without having you copy and paste them onto one big page for them. A revert to 2005-10-28 looks to be the best thing if you're too lazy.--Apocrypha 18:54, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * That is left over from some old project when half the pages had a table row in includeonly tags, it was a reference table much like the old profession reference tables :) &mdash; Skuld  06:21, 23 June 2006 (CDT)