User talk:Warskull16356

There is a corsair necromancer boss in Issnur Isles called "Commander Weirshkul" or something similar, is this you? :) &mdash; Skuld 05:06, 23 November 2006 (CST)
 * Yes, he's also in the drunken shauben quest. -Warskull 14:18, 23 November 2006 (CST)

Builds
Finally, an experienced PvP'er to take the initiative to vote against conceptual and disfunctional builds. I've been trying to remain impartial on such topics, but it's always nice to see someone going ahead and makes some more professional opinions on some useless builds. Thanks for the input. =) &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 22:02, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * "...this build being favored is an embrassment to Guild Wiki." Wow. Tone down on the rhetoric, will you? I don't care if you can balance skills for ArenaNet, but comments like this are not necessary. Your expertise is appreciated but that elitist attitude is not. [[Image:Thedarkmarine.Icon.jpg]] Thedarkmarine 18:39, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * Why is it elitist?.. &mdash; Skuld 06:52, 18 December 2006 (CST)
 * insulting
 * unneeded
 * frankly useless as an argument
 * do I really need to go on?
 * --Theeth (talk)   21:21, 18 December 2006 (CST)
 * Was that a serious question skuld? im begining to see the problem here.....--Coloneh RIP[[Image:Coloneh.png]] 20:47, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * Is warskull and skuld the same person? Judging by the way they shamelessly tried to tagteam and take down this build.  and by the way skuld seems to rush to warskull's defense here (not to mention the similar names), it seems possible? BTW, i agree totally with Thedarkmarine.  Really no reason for such elitist insults. Vanessa 20:15, 21 February 2007 (CST)

I'd like some input on if you have the time. Thanks. =) &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 23:16, 21 December 2006 (CST)

New builds policy proposal
Hi. As somebody who has made several contributions to the discussion at GuildWiki talk:No Original Builds I just wanted to draw your attention to an alternative policy I've proposed at Build Split. If you've got the time I'd be very grateful if you could give it a read through and leave any comment you may have on its talk page. Thanks! --NieA7 10:41, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Spirit Strength Rits
You have unfavored every one of these in testing, mine was recently favored and i would like it if you would take a look at it and offer any advice. Understand that the build is RA/TA, but also please note any shortcomings and strenths you see in it. I want someone who's going to take a slightly harsher look at it to offer some criticism.

Thank you --Midnight08 19:57, 28 December 2006 (CST)


 * could you be a bit more specific please, i asked for criticism specifically. not a good build doesnt tell me why. I want to do what is needed to make it a good build --Midnight08 20:21, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Any particular reason for voting it unfavored? I have no problems with an unfavored vote, but constructive critizism rather than just your sig would be welcome. Also, from my understanding, you focus on PvP builds from what I hear. It clearly states that it is infact a PvE build. Please keep this in mind. --Mgrinshpon 22:58, 30 December 2006 (CST)

BiP Necro
Check out my variation of a BiP necro and let me know if this would be worth making a build out of.

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Build_talk:N/any_BiP_Necro

--Nightslayer 11:12, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Voting
Warskull you have been voting without any given reason on various builds. Could you please give an explanation for your vote? tyvm. -- S i  g  m  A   09:52, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 * He doesn't have to. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:10, 21 February 2007 (CST)
 * It would benefit the community more if he did though. As such, although not required, doing so would be very nice. He is not being commanded to do it, but requested. [[Image:Canada_39x40.png|19px]] Thedarkmarine 23:23, 21 February 2007 (CST)
 * you know your bad at voting when Sigm@ tells you to leave reasons. =D --Coloneh RIP[[Image:Coloneh.png]]  19:50, 23 February 2007 (CST)
 * "Voting after testing the build in game and leaving a detailed comment with the vote is preferred, but not needed to make the vote count." --Misfate 21:37, 24 February 24 2007 (PST)
 * Yeah but usually his voting sucks, I wanna point and laugh when he leaves reasons :( (Not a fifty five 00:18, 5 March 2007 (CST))

Removing GvG Tags
You have been removing GvG tags on several builds, either with bad reasons (i.e., you just wanted to), or no reason at all. It would seem that the wiki as a whole was OK with these builds as GvG builds, but you believe your opion overrides the wiki's or something. was pretty nsaty in particular, because it puts in you in violation of GW:1RV to boot. I'm no admin, but I would advise you stop before serious action is taken against you.--Nog64Talk 19:35, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * You are incorrect, to violate GW:1RV I would have to revert the article. I simply edited the article to remove an inappropriate GvG tag.  You would have reverted it to bring back the GvG tag.  There was no evidence in the talk page at all of a revert war involving that tag.  It is pretty unreasonable to expect an editor to search through the entire history of an article when there is no evidence of a revert war.  -Warskull 12:31, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Voting behaviour
Looked through your contributions and saw.. 6 favored votes and 93 unfavored. This is roughly 6%. Builds in Favored right now is about 12%, and I think anyoen can agree at least 80% belong there. If this isn't odd to anyone, consider that all (might have been 5)6 votes were on builds used by top 100 guilds that can be seen on observer and were getting vetted anyways.

So basically this user has contributed 0-3% favorably to the swing votes of the vetting community. I.e. no real votes have been made except to try and crush builds that were original or not in gvg(Not a fifty five 20:57, 6 March 2007 (CST))


 * Or bad. -Silk Weaker 02:52, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * :) yeah 90% of original builds are crap.. but 100% is an entirely different story. (Not a fifty five 03:49, 7 March 2007 (CST))

:(
aww, we can't rate warskull? Or you just saying I need to test warskull before votng skuld? (Not a fifty five 03:50, 7 March 2007 (CST))
 * lol. 'LF Warskull!' --[[User:Sigm@|Σιγ μα

]] 13:35, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * I think he's just for GvG anyway, so it would be more like "Need one Wakrskull come to hall!"--Nog64Talk [[Image:Word_of_Healing.jpg|19px]] 13:39, 10 March 2007 (CST)

Userbox
(T/C) 21:30, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * HA! i love it. i've snatched your box, warskull. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 21:33, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, this box originated from User:Rapta. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:37, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Your comments
In GuildWiki_talk:Builds_wipe, you commented, and kick people like you out of it. Also stating that GW admins are finally growing a pair. This is not the halls. Be more careful in your words in the future. &mdash; Gares 14:53, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry lol'ed irl xD. Readem (talk *contribs ) 22:16, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

User:Vallen Frostweaver/Project Archive/Profession Roles
Hey, I was just reading your comment on the talk page. I was wondering whether you could look over the proposed policy found here and tell me whether or not you think the concept itself is entirely not doable or if the idea just needs some work. In the latter case, I would greatly appreciate feeback since this is my first attempt at actually creating a working policy. Thanks. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 02:16, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

Category talk:Profession combinations
while i do not disagree with your message, your method is out of line. --Honorable Sarah 20:56, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

It's Official
( Talk • Contribs) 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)