User talk:Xeeron16725

Flame Djinn
Have you tried that strategy you proposed in the Flame Djinn article. I have seen groups try it with catastrophic results. It requires a crafty monk and 99% of the monks in the game are not crafty :) --Karlos 10:10, 20 Sep 2005 (EST)

I did. It was in a group doing the last SF mission (where you have to defeat 3 Djinns at the end). We had one very good healing monk, one half monk and me as protection monk. After getting to the end without big problems, we tried to form a healing ball there, but with only one heal area, we did not succeed. So we racked up DP, till we all were close to or at -60%. Then we switched to the tanking tactic. The Djinn does aggro on the first person approaching him and does not change targets, if the other party members do not get close. I cast Aegis, Shielding Hands and Protective Spirit on the warrior, who then began to tank. After that, I spammed Reversal on him (and renewed prot spirit from time to time), while the healing monk spammed healing breeze. Most of the time the attack would remove something apart from reversal, in which case the warrior took no damage, a few times reversal was removed, then the warrior took 10% damage. Since the Djinn did not get a lot of HP back from his attack, our casters could kill him in <30 seconds. The only reasons I see for this tactic not to work is either not enough enchantments spammed on the tank or party members getting to close and taking over the aggro from the tank. - Xeeron


 * Excellent. That's all I needed to hear. Often times people put "rumored strategies" and "pop culture tactics." I just wanted to know this is something that was tried. --Karlos 08:32, 21 Sep 2005 (EST)

Mistakes and Solutions
Heh, just to note, you CREATED "Template:Ollj" when you added the delete tag to it. It once existed but had already been deleted. --Fyren 09:40, 29 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Yes noticed that too, to my dismay. Wanted to delete the talk page which I set up for deletion later =) --Xeeron 09:41, 29 Sep 2005 (EST)

Also, check the bottom of User Questions if you haven't already. --Fyren 09:43, 29 Sep 2005 (EST)

Hey Xeeron, In responce to your question to me, yes I did write the ODIN article. I will add a comments section to the article so that users can share their expirence with the build. --AeSiR_oDiN 01:27, 22 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * Ahh thx. I'll put in yourself as a person recommending the build on the talk page. Once a build has been recommended by 2-3 people, it should be moved to Category:Builds instead of Category:Build stubs --Xeeron 13:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

An example of how to link to Wikipedia without the external link icon showing up: stub. --Rezyk 03:21, 11 February 2006 (CST)


 * Thx =) --Xeeron 03:23, 11 February 2006 (CST)

Just a quick question Why is your User Page in the builds category? --Xasxas256 11:08, 28 February 2006 (CST)
 * I fixed it on his user page. Sorry if I crossed some wiki-etiquette rule by editing some else's user page, let me know if I did! --Barek 11:16, 28 February 2006 (CST)
 * Yeah as a punishment we'll have to get out the stone alter, spread leaves in circle and sacrifice you to the God's, that's also part of Wiki-etiquette didn't you know!? :) Actually I was a bit lothe to change someone else's user page, particularly a long upstanding member but I probably should have just done it, Be Bold and all that. Even Jimmy Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales, one of the Wikipedia founders has "feel free to edit this page" splashed across his user page. But I still didn't like the idea, I do like the idea of Xeeron sending the screaming banshees after you instead of me though Barek!!--Xasxas256 13:09, 28 February 2006 (CST)
 * Relax, you did well, was just a typo on my side that I did not notice. ::Pets Banshees:: --Xeeron 18:53, 28 February 2006 (CST)

Profession combinations in titles
This isn't nessescary, that info can be included in the page! AFAIK stuff like that is only put in if there is an overlap in page names e.g. Domination Magic (Quest) 09:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2 purposes:
 * First, the builds will be automatically ordered by Profession
 * Second, some titles are not informative at all (do you know what class ODIN will turn out to be??)
 * --Xeeron 09:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't notice you reverted my moves, stopped moving now.


 * For the reasons of moving, also check Category_talk:Build_stubs. Especially the Build stubs category is very confusing, some ordering according to profession would help in my opinion. But as I see that you disagree, lets have a quick vote instead of reverts please =) --Xeeron 09:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say I agree with Xeeron. Having professions in the title helps to sort out messes and identify what a build really is. --Kiiron 10:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning behind my vote: It seems more appropriate and better suited to develop the profession info through subcategories instead. --Rezyk 14:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote
1.) Profession in title: Xeeron, Kiiron, betaman, Kidburla, Shandy

2.) Titles stay as they are: Rezyk

3.) Other:

(please finish voting by Jan 20th)

Oops I missed that vote >< anyway can we have just "R" instead of "R/any"? 212.158.245.101 08:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with 212.158 on that. It is possible to create single class characters in-game (though god knows why you would). Ne/any or R/any just looks ugly :P Shandy 08:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * a)log in =)
 * b)that is what Category:Votes is for
 * c)Hmmm. I rather like R/any because it is clearer. Unless you feel it looks outright ugly I'd prefer that. --Xeeron 08:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * lol second person complaining about it while I answer, okok, I'll move to R from now on. --Xeeron 08:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry 212.158 is me 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

BUMP: Can R/any trapper be Ranger Trapper? or E/any Nuker be Elementalist Nuker? and so on? 00:00, 18 February 2006 (CST)

Honestly, I dont care a lot, as long as all builds are named the same way. We could go with:


 * 1) "R/Mo xxx" and "Ranger xxx": Xeeron
 * 2) "R/Mo xxx" and "R/any xxx": Rainith Xeeron FireFox
 * 3) "Ranger/Monk xxx" and "Ranger xxx":
 * 4) "R/Mo xxx" and "R xxx": Shandy Rainith

2 was what I initially started with (and grace did now), 4 is what I did inbetween. Hmmm quick vote? (till 24th of feb. please) --Xeeron 03:26, 18 February 2006 (CST)

I'm good with 2, and prefer 4. Shandy 18:44, 20 February 2006 (CST)
 * I'm good with 2 or 4, no preference over either. --Rainith 18:49, 20 February 2006 (CST)

First choice 1, second 4 22:52, 25 February 2006 (CST)


 * Hmmm. Not a big turnout, but it seems no new votes are incomming. Unless someone objects (and votes!) fast, I'll implement the winner, No 2. --Xeeron 18:53, 28 February 2006 (CST)
 * Is the vote officially over then? The page is still linked to the 'votes' category, so I wasn't sure. --161.88.x.x 00:56, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * Sorry my fault for not removing the category, yes the vote is over. --Xeeron 03:07, 3 March 2006 (CST)

Abbreviations
Erm, can you define APM? In the interview on guildwars.com the interviewee mentions Monks having the highest APM. What does that mean? Attacks per minute?! Shandy 10:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
While you flagged the Vampire build for deletion, I edited it substantially. Thinking more about my criticism, I realized that it was a mis-labeled N/W build, not a W/N build, so energy actually isn't a problem. Right now I think it's a passable-but-not-necessarily good meleemancer, rather than an unplayable warrior. Since you cited my Talk post as the main reason for your delete tag, I removed the tag since most of the specific criticisms brought up there were addressed by my own changes, I feel. It may be that the build still deserves deletion, but not for those reasons anymore. Thus, I invite you to take a second look and re-flag it if you can identify issues other than the ones I brought up in my note.

Apologies if this isn't the standard way we're supposed to be doing this. (I posted this more eloquently once before, but the server seemed to eat it or something.) 130.58 14:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, rewriting rather than deleting is definitly the better way to get rid of a bad article. Dont hesitate to make a good instead of a "passable-but-not-necessarily good" meleemancer out of the build =) --Xeeron 08:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: You seem to have saved the delete tag version and not the changed version.
 * No. I changed W/N to N/W and modified the usage notes to try to make sense of what the character was supposed to be doing, without changing the skills. I think you're right, though: skills need significant tweaking. I think the OotV meleemancer idea is novel and potentially viable in 4v4 arena, but I won't be able to test it and tweak it any time soon, nor am I a very good warrior. So it seems like deletion was the right idea. 130.58 12:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

template brakage
Ahhh i dont know what you've done but look at my user page User:Skuld and sig 02:57, 11 February 2006 (CST) I think you screwed up the profession icons when you categorised them  02:57, 11 February 2006 (CST)


 * Err, yes that looks screwed. Maybe someone with superior wiki knowledge to the rescue? Put the noinclude in the same line? If it cant be fixed, I will remove the template category (but I hope it can, its useful). --Xeeron 03:06, 11 February 2006 (CST)


 * Hmm I put the noinclude in the same line as the template, seems to work now. Tell me if you still see any screwed up pages please. --Xeeron 03:11, 11 February 2006 (CST)

what that vote is about
In the vote that is now GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills/Archive 4, a majority decided to remove redundency of data between the skill info box and skill quick reference lists. There will only be one copy of the skill description on the wiki. We are voting on how that one copy of data will be formatted.

I believe, from Graven's comments at User talk:Evil Greven, that his proposal is just going to be the landscape boxes, and does not include the vertical ones. -PanSola 23:02, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * I guess it would help alot if the examples would be complete skill article pages, instead of the templates only. --Xeeron 23:25, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * My proposal has complete skill article pages, sorry I didn't think to include them, but they would appear as the "indipendent" at the bottom of my example page. I'll add links there now.  -PanSola 05:00, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Multi-voting
For the skill box vote, please only place your vote on your first preference, and use parenthesis (like mine) to specify your backup choices. This will help the vote-tally process, thank you. -PanSola 09:16, 17 March 2006 (CST)
 * Unfortunatly, I dont have a first preference. I came up with several (those that I did not vote for) that I disliked, the other all look ok for me. --Xeeron 20:36, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Hybrid 4b
I introduced a slight variant to hybrid 4. Personally I think it's an improvement, but you should decide for yourself whether to move your support from 4 to 4b. -SolaPan 06:22, 20 March 2006 (CST)

Unstubbing
Why not merge your list with the one on Community Portal and maintain just one central list? &mdash; Stabber 04:36, 21 March 2006 (CST)


 * Heh I just started these as an reminder, so I dont forget which articles to check later, but good idea on that list (if somewhat maintance heavy). --Xeeron 04:40, 21 March 2006 (CST)

Taking a break
I'll be taking a break from Guildwiki for a bit. Take care of the new builds for me. --Xeeron 08:21, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I have no idea why noone else has put a comment here but I wish you all the best. You've been around for a long time and done plenty of good stuff for the GuildWiki, regardless of how long your break is, enjoy it and have fun with all the free time you've now got because you're not making daily edits here any more :) --Xasxas256 03:45, 20 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Back. Just in time to miss the head-start of Factions. Will be looking for new factions builds now =) --Xeeron 05:50, 29 April 2006 (CDT)

Big discussion day on guildwiki
Or, I just worked through (hopefully) the last talk page involved in this huge spat. I will not reply to each talk page, mainly because I fear stirring up these discussions again. But while reading I noticed several points and assertions that I disagree with and I'll comment on them here:


 * Wikignomes are not worth less than "normal" contributers.
 * There is a needed balance between normal edits and administrative edits. Without the first, there would be nothing to administer, without the second, noone would find anything. While there can be too much or too little of both, they are strictly equal is worth.


 * The number of edits can be different for users who put in the same amount of work.
 * Some edits simply take much more time. Testing a new build for 2 hours, reflecting on the skills and weapons and posting updates on the article is one edit, but tons of work. Putting in the text of a new skill is just as needed, but you can do 50 such edits in the same amount of time as above.


 * "People can write whatever they want on their user pages."
 * Definitly not. There are limits to free speech whether you are writing on an article or your own talk page.


 * "ban-request should be deleted"
 * While I would have thought that the ban request is harmless and will not be abuses, that is obviously otherwise. The difference between a (vandal) and a (ban) template is that the first raises an acusation (which should be allowed for everyone), while the second advocates a punishment (which should be left to the arbitrator, in this case the admins). So while I am not personally opposed to (ban) templates, (vandal) and (request for arbitration) templates would serve the same purpose just as well, without the additional intimidation potential.


 * Revert-only-once policy
 * Is sound and I support it. After the first revert the matter should go on the talk page.


 * Everyone would do well to fully read the talk pages before assuming things
 * To pick one out arbitrarily, the statement: "The irony was that, a short period of time after F G flagged Stabber, he proclaimed that, because nobody has came to Stabber's defense, Stabber should be banned. The "short period of time", as far as I can tell comparing insert of ban template and "no one has come to her defense", was 4 MINUTES." is clearly wrong, as would be noticed when reading the talk pages of the articles liked in the ban template. This is not to diss Pansola, but this kind of unclearness is what makes bad situations escalate to worse. --Xeeron 07:50, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Apologies, and thanks for the correction. -PanSola 07:55, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Wow that was really well written Xeeron, and I agree with everything in it. You've organised your thoughts really well and written that out so clear and conciesely. Maybe you should be made an arbitration goto person. But are you a little scared to see me agreeing with you!? :P You and PanSola are so calm at the moment, it's making me feel like the Hulk! --Xasxas256 09:29, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, I kind of know the situation that those closely involved are in at the moment. When it is all about *you*, one gets very caught in the argument and personal accusation is answered with personal accusation (instead of the calm reply that you know is better, when you think about it). Others getting to personal makes things only worse and leads to even bigger problems. Usually it is best for everyone but those directly involved to stay extremely calm and technical. Just my thoughts. --Xeeron 10:13, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Deleting Builds
I know the builds are your little baby and you do a heck of a lot of work on them but it seems a shame to do a massive purge of builds. I'm looking at N/Me Blacklight and thinking that because it's a build by Stabber it'll probably never get testing confirmation and will just be deleted. Why not keep the untested builds category and move them out when they've been sucessfully tested. It seems a pity to remove such a huge amount of builds, not all of them are old Ollj builds that have been around for months. It's kind of like declaring them of being innocent until proven guilty. If a build is untested I guess you're more likely to think of them as being no good until somebody (other than the original contributor) says it's a worthwhile build. If there's already a discussion about this please point me there, otherwise it seems to be something worth discussing to me. --Xasxas256 06:44, 13 May 2006 (CDT) Don't worry about it, please delete when you see this next Xeeron. --Xasxas256 06:45, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I hate deleting them as well. Some of them I myself voted to keep. It is some kind of desperate attempt to get people to look at them. There are tons of builds that would not deleted if there was just one more vote for either unstub or keep. Btw, I didnt see your vote on many builds.
 * You might also look at the Category talk:Build stubs at Bishops idea which noone seems to find interesting. --Xeeron 06:47, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

The Criteria for deletion page explicitely mentions "Do not use the delete template as a way to communicate desired changes for an article". Isn't that exactly what you are doing except on a massive scale? --theeth 07:09, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
 * No. While I am happy about build being improved, there are some builds that are just not good. These need to go, because readers need to be sure that builds they find here will work. If you see any build up for deletion that you find worth keeping, please vote on the talk page. --Xeeron 07:13, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Can you leave a note when you've finished adding all the delete tags? I'll have a look over them then. I may actually end up achieving them too, possibly not on the GuildWiki, just on my HDD, or maybe in my User space. --Xasxas256 07:10, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Will do, I'll leave a note on your user talk. --Xeeron 07:13, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks mate, it might actually force me to play the game which would be good! --Xasxas256 07:16, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Something achieved already =) --Xeeron 07:16, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Looking at your note on Category:Candidates for deletion, does this mean we're not going to use the abandoned builds category? I can see that Bishop has added all the to be deleted builds into Category:Unfavored builds but since then you've added a note on Category:Candidates for deletion saying don't delete these builds before the 16th of May. Are we keeping them or not? --Xasxas256 22:39, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

I think crappy builds that no one cares about enough to even bother voting against them ought to be remorselessly deleted. Two weeks was a long enough time for discussion. The unfavored builds category is silly if the point of including a build article in the GuildWiki is to implicitly document the current metagame. 70.20.116.223 23:27, 14 May 2006 (CDT)