User talk:Skuld14148

new +

Minion Master Builds
I was creating the MM builds from the MM guide based on the discussion on its talk pages, prior to removing them from the guide. As such I wasn't the author of the build, which is why I voted unfavoured. You're a bit quick on the delete button, could you give other people a chance to talk about it for a while first? A day won't kill the site. --NieA7 14:53, 17 July 2006 (CDT)
 * he was talking about me, i authored both those builds in the Gmmg back before verata's nerf. i also flagged them for delete. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:54, 17 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Ah, fair enough (I didn't want to effectivly delete someone elses build from the site entirely even if I didn't like them). Did you create the Golem Master build too, and if so can I just chuck that as well? --NieA7 14:58, 17 July 2006 (CDT)
 * no, i kinda washed my hands of that guide after the 26th --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:57, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

Sry for any confusion &mdash; Skuld  15:39, 17 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Did you read my comment on the Minion Master category page before you deleted it, and if so what do you suggest I use in its place? --NieA7 05:15, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

Archive templates
While doing some house cleaning, I found some templates (Template:Archive, Template:Archive2, Template:Archive3, Template:Archive4, and Template:Archive5) you created that don't seem to be in use. Safe to delete, or still a work in process? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:49, 17 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually FireFox created them, I didn't want them at all! The design was mine, templates him &mdash; Skuld  04:04, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * They get subst-ed instead of directly used, is my understanding. - 04:09, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh I like them now, before we didn't have template substituion installed &mdash; Skuld  04:11, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

User Talk pages
Just curious here - I know that you've posted on several user pages that they can't delete info on their own talk page. Where is that a written policy? I know the community has had repeated discussions on this, but I don't recall a concensus ever being reached. It's certainly good practice to archive items off your talk page, but I don't see why or how it should be mandated unless there is an officially policy on it. The history tab gives full visibility to the history already. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:48, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Easier to read everything than fishing about through versions? Stuff can get missed out and deleted very easily thansk to mediawiki not highlighting all changes. As I see it the talk pages are not a bit like user pages, they don't as such, belong to the user as they are there for everyone to use &mdash; Skuld  09:01, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * But where is it a written wiki policy? Without policy, what are you using to backup the enforcement?  I honestly do see talk pages as being an integral part of the article to which they are attached.  In the case of primary articles, those articles and talk pages belong to the community, and should be more carefully maintained with archives.  In the case of user talk pages, I see them as coming as part of the user page.  They are open to everyone (as are, technically, the user pages themselves), but the responsibility of the user page owner to maintain as they see fit.  Again, the history keeps track of everything.  My only issue would be if a current active discussion were blanked out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:17, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

Back to this topic again ... re: your revert on the blanking of User talk:205.188.116.136, I really don't see the value in keeping the history on that one. First: conceptually, I disagree with the idea of not permitting the user themselves from removing content of their user_talk pages, and I have not found a GW policy that bans them from doing it. Second, the restored content to me is justification to blank it. It shows that the user is on an America Online IP, which means it's probable that it's a dynamic IP. If so, then the three posts to it (including the post to remove content) could easilly have been done by up to three different users. Keeping the content does nothing more that confuse random AOL users. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:29, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

RE: Items dropped
Ah, sorry, I should've read that first, makes sense. ^^ &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niwa &bull; contribs) 18:12, 18 July 2006.
 * Np :) &mdash; Skuld  12:15, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

Template:R
Can you delete it, and then remake it (not revert the delete, remake) to see if you can get the wiki to correct itself? When the problem is corrected, ignore this there should be 2 ranger icons: --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 14:51, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * No luck &mdash; Skuld  15:01, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Saw, gotta be something wrong on the software end. I tried purging the pages too. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 15:02, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Pansola's explaination on this makes the most sense, by the way can you fix up the Warden article to or  considering you reverted my edit. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 15:11, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Sry, thoguht it was just tempory so I was reverting all the lower cases for consistensy. guess we'll be using r >< 15:31, 18 July 2006 (CDT)