User talk:Skuld14148

Tags / Misspellings
Way to not close your i tag on energy ;)

I also confirmed and deleted your mention of descendent being correct both ways since it is valid other English and not used in game. ErkDog 12:57, 20 November 2006 (CST)


 * Are you sure that was me? o.O &mdash; Skuld 12:57, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Lol I thought it was, maybe it wasn't I was in a hurry this morning plus I had to flip someone removing an entry just because they had checked it, lol. Did you add the note about mana being valid on black lotus and energy page? ErkDog 12:59, 20 November 2006 (CST)


 * Nope :) &mdash; Skuld 13:00, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Haha wow I'm struggling today, none of this was you :) ErkDog 13:04, 20 November 2006 (CST)


 * This is for ErkDog: :P  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:24, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Cricket
Hey Skuld, you don't follow the cricket by any chance do you!? --Xasxas256 08:40, 21 November 2006 (CST)
 * Afraid not! &mdash; Skuld 09:51, 21 November 2006 (CST)

Alem_the_Unclean_map.jpg
Uploaded a new image. Baffled at the moment as to why the old image for Alem_the_Unclean_map.jpg still shows when you click the map to enlarge. Tried to delete the old image and got message that only admin can delete. Hope that helps some. Best regards,--ShmEk 08:52, 21 November 2006 (CST)
 * Hit F5 to clear your browser cache :) &mdash; Skuld 09:51, 21 November 2006 (CST)
 * Or via the internet options menu in IE. ~ Nilles (msg) 10:00, 21 November 2006 (CST)

sandbox
Its only fair that if your posting your build in my build box, then you should allow me to post mine in yours. if you continue to remove mine, then i shall do the same.
 * Wtf? &mdash; Skuld 17:43, 21 November 2006 (CST)

wait, what?
so your not that jackass who keeps putting this retarded build in my lil sandbox thing? then why little notic thing are you talking about? i just remove the stud thing.76.179.75.163 19:05, 21 November 2006 (CST)


 * How very polite of you.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 19:49, 21 November 2006 (CST)


 * Its not your sandbox it was created for the public. What you did was basically tear down the sign "Livermore Public Library" off the public library when removing that notice.  Also, the sandbox is cleared periodically, the yellow notice specifically says so. (Not a fifty five 19:57, 21 November 2006 (CST))
 * All very true. Additionally, if you want a "sandbox" of your own try creating an account and using your own user page to work on builds and such.  Wouldn't hurt to be a little nicer to your fellow Guildwiki users either.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:24, 22 November 2006 (CST)


 * In honesty I have no idea what specifically he's referring to.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:16, 22 November 2006 (CST)

*Sigh*
Hey Skuld, sorry for contacting you here about this, but I think my account on GWGuru was banned. Could you please check into that, as I don't want to make a duplicate account incase it's just a fluke? Username's Etrik. Would appreciate it if you would leave an answer here or on my user page. Finrod 13:37, 22 November 2006 (CST)
 * Dral says you had a 1 day mini-ban for bumping on here but no other bans &mdash; Skuld 13:52, 22 November 2006 (CST)
 * hmm interesting, I didn't know bans could be different sizes. I know they could be for various durations, such as short, or long.  But a mini-ban.  That's a new on on me. ErkDog 16:25, 22 November 2006 (CST)
 * I got a ban for ten minutes lawl (Not a fifty five 16:35, 22 November 2006 (CST))
 * Thanks for the quick reply. That thread was posted in late june tho, hence the confusion of me getting banned *now*. I was actually good :( [[Image:Light of Deliverance.jpg|20px]] Finrod 16:36, 24 November 2006 (CST)

Confused Sorry Person
Um Skuld i was givin a message saying LordBiro baned me from eiditing pages for vandalising and i havent vandalised i promise you anyway i have a talk but im not sure how to make it a link so my names Naf sorry for bothering you.

More Ranger Builds to eliminate?
In an attempt to clean up the ranger builds further I have created from an existing build a compilation of Ranger interruption builds that are currently in existance. Please take a look as I am trying to get them all together similar to how many barrage builds have been combined into R/any General PvE Barrage Ranger to save space and better organize. If you think this is a good version/merger of all the builds then please take note of the below builds listing as they would then need to be be deleted (being that they were all merged and archived into this one build). I archived each build involved and their talk pages for reference. Let me know what you think.

Existing Untested builds also archived on Build:R/any General PvE Interrupter's talk page (that would end up being deleted): Not archived Stub build already covered by this/these:
 * Build:R/any PvE Interrupt
 * Build:R/any Interrupt Ranger
 * Build:R/any Poisonous Interupt
 * Build:R/any The Dazer
 * Build:R/Me Dazer Interrupter
 * Build:R/any Annoying Biter
 * Build:R/any Broad Head Interrupt

Thanks. --  Vallen Frostweaver  10:35, 24 November 2006 (CST)


 * The name is excessively long imo. Just PvE Interrupter prehaps? &mdash; Skuld 10:40, 24 November 2006 (CST)
 * I had that originally but it doesn't include Choking Gas as there is already a favored CG build out there. I just put the CG build to "untested" from vetted as it didn't have enough favored votes but it looks like it just needs a couple corrections to the main build and I'm sure it'll be back in the vetted category.  Otherwise, I'll be glad to add another section to it for CG+PS if you like.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  10:43, 24 November 2006 (CST)
 * I put CG ranger back to tested, it isn't so common any more with the 6 man teams but was extremely popular back then :] Certainly deserves its own page &mdash; Skuld 10:45, 24 November 2006 (CST)
 * Ok, well I added the CG+PS combo to the build page and simplified it's title (see above) so it'll be all inclusive. As it's PvE and that build you changed was focused on PvP I think they can be considered for different uses then.  What do you think of it now?--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  10:54, 24 November 2006 (CST)
 * Added Annoying Biter to the above. Archived on the talk page.  Hope this gets vetted as it'll really clean a lot of builds out again.  Yay for a cleaner ranger builds area!--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  09:09, 27 November 2006 (CST)

Deleted Build
Hey, I was just wondering why you deleted my mesmer build. You put the e-surge mesmer build as the reason, but mine only shares 2 skills with that build. Mine was also a high damage build rather than just interrupts. - Torag 20:29, 24 November 2006 (CST)


 * It was inferior to the tested e-surger. Backfire, empathy and e-tap are quite bad skills. You may wish to look at Spiritual Pain and Wastrel's Demise for better damage skills &mdash; Skuld 20:31, 24 November 2006 (CST)

I see what you mean about those skills, but they don't help as far as shutting down the opponent. E-tap was one I was trying to replace. Theres no point in arguing though so thank you for the explanation. - Torag 20:47, 24 November 2006 (CST)

Cover
I just covered you so nicely, you owe me! :P You can start by giving me a list of every English editor on the GuildWiki, I need to know more Poms so I can |start bragging!!! :P :P :P --Xasxas256 07:33, 25 November 2006 (CST)
 * 404 Error


 * You have tried to reach a page that doesn't exist at Cricket365.com
 * :P cheers :]&mdash; Skuld 07:57, 25 November 2006 (CST)


 * What's that you say Skuld, you want me to give you a blow by blow description of what happened at the Gabba today? :P --Xasxas256 08:02, 25 November 2006 (CST)


 * Try this: http://www.cricket365.com/news/story_22634.shtml ~ Nilles (msg) 11:32, 25 November 2006 (CST)

Oops
for somereason my message i posted there didn't go Lancek  17:54, 25 November 2006 (CST)

Help!
For some odd reasons omething went wrong with title for E/any SF Nuker, try and get it back together please,it's totally messed up. Sorry for double edit: but it dosn't even seem to be listed in Untested Builds!


 * I believe it's sorted.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:24, 26 November 2006 (CST)


 * Thanks!--~Edo Dodo~ 13:38, 26 November 2006 (CST)

yep, wrong edit
yeah i did mean to change it to that edit for the drunk article, whoops. Xeon 03:19, 27 November 2006 (CST)
 * Bah i did it again, i read the wrong side of the history -_-. Xeon 03:21, 27 November 2006 (CST)

Bug report
Hi!

I'm writing here for two bug reports (here at GuildWiki, not in the game):

1) Can't fine anymore the link to the official GuildWiki bug report's page..

2) What is this "INtRudEr" user name/link on the main page even if logged??

( 3) the menu links are in a form on your talk page.. :s)

Corsaire 05:34, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * You see "INtRudEr" instead of where your name should usually be, only on the main page? --Fyren 06:12, 28 November 2006 (CST)
 * I'll have to admit, I was seeing something similar yesterday myself but it was a different user's name at the top. Strange how the main page randomly looks like I'm logged out but then when I click on a link or enter a page name to go to it turns out that I'm still logged in.  I couldn't get it to do it consistently though so I have no real hard info to offer to duplicate the error.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:43, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * Yes, I saw "INtRudEr" in place of my own login name. But, don't know why, now, it's OK (for me, at this very time of writing). Delogging do nothing strange except delogging.. I'll look if this happen again. Corsaire 08:02, 28 November 2006 (CST)

Builds section as an embarrassment?
Just curious, but why do you see this in this way? I've been trying to improve it but would like to hear your comments as well.--  Vallen Frostweaver  10:40, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * It just doesn't work. There aren't enough people willing to put time in to tell people why their build sucks, and I for one am sick of fighting those battles. G-wiki's build section is reguarded as a joke for the most part. Nothing personal &mdash; Skuld 10:42, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * Is it possible to get admins and trusted wise users to one day "clean house" and just do a mass sorting / voting day? I know it is asking a lot, but i agree; there are so many in the untested section, and they are mostly all bad copies of tested builds. Baron Will Scarlett [[Image:Baron.JPG|25px]] 10:47, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * Nothing personal taken. I definitely agree that there is a lack of participation from people but I know a lot of people who come here for ideas on builds.  You are right though that something needs to change for the better.  I just don't know what - or at least what would work.
 * To Baron: I have been going through the ranger builds (given - at my own pace) and so far have reduced them quite a bit. We need more dedicated people assigned to each profession though to make any kind of all profession impact.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  10:51, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * (edit conflict) I might delete 50 crappy builds, but out of those, there will always be 7 that will hound me and cry unfairness and badmouth the wiki, and I don't want to waste a load of time putting it back, rallying a load of ppl to vote for each of these, and then deleting them. I'd like to improve the good pages and put time into the thing, maybe even put up the _actual_ popular ones instead of the next big thing: firestorm ritualist, but at the moments its just a battle -.- &mdash; Skuld 10:53, 28 November 2006 (CST)
 * I'm with ya. You sound like you need a vacation Skuld. ;) --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  10:56, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * You'll need to ban me first, I go on the wiki on vacation :p :p &mdash; Skuld 10:58, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * I think there is an inherent conflict between the nature of a wiki and the nature of a Builds section. Ideally, a builds section should be free. i.e. Joe can post the "R/Me Echo Backfire Beast Master" build if he so chooses and no one should really object to that. Then people like you and me would discuss it on the discussion page and say we like it or hate it or whatever. Much like a forum post.
 * However, the nature of a wiki poses two problems: A) Anyone can come and edit this guy's article and tweak it and refine it and even mess it up. And B) As a wiki we like to "verify" stuff. i.e. If someone posts "the" Ritual Lord article, no one will take their word for it. People will vet it and debate it and so forth. The present "vetting procesS" is to ensure that the readers are actually looking at good viable builds. Because out of every 10 new submitted builds, 8 are lame. It is actually our obligation as a wiki (an encyclopedia, not a forum for self expression) to care and to check and to verify.
 * Hence the inherent conflict. Now to have a number of people dedicate themselves to vetting is fine, but that's a volunteer effort. "Not a 55" is already trying to do this and everyone is welcome to help him. --Karlos 11:02, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * It's just so hard. I am one who submits crappy build, but because I challenge myself to get new ideas (not usually accepted idead mind you) and to re-make crappy ideas. I dont mind when they get shot down. I think new ideas can spring new, better builds. I think people just need to learn how to use the unfavored build section so as to know what NOT to do. Baron Will Scarlett [[Image:Baron.JPG|25px]] 11:10, 28 November 2006 (CST)

I think gwguru is the place to get some advice for whether it is any good rly, I think it would be good if people could go there, and then write up a page for here, rather than have it in development. Too much a forum :D &mdash; Skuld 11:36, 28 November 2006 (CST)