User talk:Entropy/Archive 25

Rate-a-user
Favoured:
 * 1) Nice user boxes, lol so many userboxes, keep it up. -- "Wings" 02:44, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * ''can you please sign my talk page, no one has signed it yet *crys*
 * 1) <3 –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 20:29, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) the userboxes...o.O --InfestedHydralisk 08:48, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Hurrah! Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * 4) Heretics forever, vetted Smiting build FTW! --Gimmethegepgun 21:36, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I present a userbox, unfortunately it's a little big :/ --Gimmethegepgun 19:15, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Hehe, clever. It is a bit big, though. :\ Also the colors need a bit of tweaking. A link that's already been clicked on is purple, and so is the background, so it is slightly hard to read. Good icon choice though. :) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:31, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Needs some skill changes, and attributes are all wrong. What's with the... Oh. It's entropy. Nm, just favored. :) NightAngel 01:19, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2)  Nice page girl [i wanted to say > nice page man XD ] its gd to see that some girls are playing guild wars. and i belive you =] Korineczek 13:01, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Unfavoured: Delete/Ban:
 * 1) How dare you insult Random Arena! Solus  [[image:Shield_of_Judgment.jpg|19px]] 23:03, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * RA isn't serious PvP! [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:45, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) RA ftw! -- Sig mA  11:45, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * RA is almost worse than "1v1"! [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:45, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Heretic! Needs more RA. --Beautiful Gae 18:26, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Bad vetting [[image:jups.jpg|16px]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Proven inexperienced player who argues poorly. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:45, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I own. anyhow check my user page pleeze people who hate me [[image:jups.jpg|16px]] 11:23, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Mmm hmm. I can see that I'm not the only one who doesn't like you. Taken for breaking GW:NPA in build vetting? Tsk, tsk... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]]
 * Umm, you're mean to me? Jagre 01:27, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Odd reason for a Favored vote. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:33, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * it was an accident lol. Jagre 01:29, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Quick, rapidly unfavor and delete her before she gets vetted! -- Nova  [[Image:NovaSmall.PNG]] --  (contribs) 20:08, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Suck it up. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:10, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) 5 day penalty for taking so long to put up character images and forgetting the name of your Ritualist. >< Entropy 22:15, 24 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Has too long of a talk page, "WARNING: This page is 63 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." -anonymous
 * 3) Deltete! &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 10:11, 4 February 2007 (CST)
 * 4) Dont like her, *bans* Shadow Of Shinra 11:52, 9 February 2007 (PST)
 * 5) Needs a lot more userboxes!!!--Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 02:05, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * 6) NOT ENOUGH TEMPLATES! :P --Gimmethegepgun 22:20, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Discussion
Thanks Mr. Anonymous. Yay, my first achive. :) Entropy 20:34, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Archived again. Only made it thru February though... >< (T/C) 02:05, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Now that's your second archive. Now you just need more people posting irrelavent stuff like skuld's talk page and you'll have tons of archives :)!! --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 02:07, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Well, as you can see I started a long irrelevant post on Skuld's talk page with some obscure comment about Microsoft Word...then it got a little out of hand...lol. I think Skuld just invites conversation that way ;) I bet if I was an admin I'd get a lot more irrelevant posts, too. Seems to come with the job. I notice you don't have an archive >.> [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:09, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * well that's because for one, I haven't been on wiki that long; and two... I'm not an admin; and three... I rarely participate in idle conversation which tends to ward off comments unrelated to wiki. Plus yeah I think it's Skuld's personality that just invites all kinds of people to comment there to death. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 02:13, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Oh I also try not to be controversial... that helps with decreasing comments :-D --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 02:14, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Me, controversial? I'm shocked - shocked! - to hear you say that... ;) I dun think I've been here much longer than you (can't remember). Actually I am surprised you don't get more comments because you vote quite frequently - most other constant voters get plenty comments (User:NightAngel comes to mind). Thou I guess it's because you keep most of your arguments to buildpages, which is good. :D [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:18, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Plus when I do argue, I keep it at a minimum... I remember certain cases when Nightangel got banned for that. lol. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 02:25, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Grumble. Yeah, so do I. :) And you know, the more people I meet, the more I think Skuld is not THAT bad. NightAngel 07:21, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah it's really hard not to go off on some of these people that keep making mending warriors or sins or other builds equally bad and say that it pwns!!!! Sometimes I just keep my self from typing in some really bad builds for fear of getting into a long winded argument. Yeah I didn't think skuld was "that" bad... and come next expansion the builds section is gonna need his help again.--Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 22:43, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * I would not mind having his help in the Builds section now >.> [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:46, 26 February 2007 (CST)

"Wings"
Thx -- "Wings" 22:00, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Talk
There hasn't been a non-vote entry in this talk page in nearly a week, what gives? --Gimmethegepgun 11:44, 4 March 2007 (CST)

I say she should just post something on global warming, war or another controversial theme so we can fill up her talk page. :) NightAngel 00:51, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * I say, we should go to war against global warming! We've been living under the environment's thumb for too long. The only question is, what do we bomb first? :-) - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * Clearly, we should go to war against the environment. It's asking for it. --Beautiful Gae 11:30, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * :) NightAngel 12:16, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * I've got an idea! Let's form a committee of people that don't have a clue what they're doing, and then 5 months later decide to nuke the environment. That'll put it in its place!!!! --Gimmethegepgun 15:13, 5 March 2007 (CST)

Global Warming is a myth, everyone knows that :D And remember what Theodore Roosevelt says: "War is the highest endeavor of man." No seriously though...since I spend so much time on builds section or just RC Patrol, there's a reason all I get is votes... :) (T/C) 21:45, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Userbox
Would take offence to this, something i can up with recently. Pretty colours eh? Solus  02:37, 8 March 2007 (CST)


 * Hum, you just copied the same box that says This user knows that Entropy is a girl. Try to be more creative next time. -.- And the box is lies! [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 06:26, 8 March 2007 (CST)

My secret (and yours) is revealed. *Hides in darkness* Solus   06:28, 8 March 2007 (CST)


 * What secret? I'm a girl -.- It's the Internet so if you don't believe it, that is your problem... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 06:30, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Just a joke, geez.. Solus  06:30, 8 March 2007 (CST)


 * Lol. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:45, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Important persons
Why ain't I listed there? I am a very important person. --Σιγ μα   13:53, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * I should be listed here too! If I just type in the  http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/  line, your talk page is the third on the list, under my contribs and watchlist. I think I deserve a medal... --Gimmethegepgun 00:56, 11 March 2007 (CST)


 * The Important Persons list, is reserved for those who are, or were, or may become, Admins/Sysops. I dunno. I just felt like having a place where some new person to the Wiki might find the Admin list, which is admittedly not readily available from the Main Page. It doesn't mean that people not on the list are not important... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:33, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Ok, I decided to make a little place for you. You're "Class A Wiki Users" now. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:45, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Bombastic? lol --Gimmethegepgun 22:19, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Build:N/any Toxic Death
Hey, do you mind taking another look at the new discussion post under my build N/any Toxic Death, I think u misunderstood the point of my build a little. Sorry to have bothered you. (yeah you must hate me). &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madcrazy2ks (contribs) 14:22, 11 March 2007 (EST).
 * What? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 15:31, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Aside from my minor skill mix-up I am not quite sure what the issue is. You seem to be saying that the build is intended for pressure and not spike, while my recommended bar is certainly spike-oriented. Well that is understandable. I will take another look and perhaps change my vote...though I will still say that only one line should be used, Death or Curses. Not both. Since your elite is in Death Magic it seems only logical that Death should be the specialized line. Soul Reaping is always a plus, lets you spam spells without fear of energy loss, as long as things die...with the addition of SoLS and SoS it also provides some handy Signets. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:45, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

your I look something like this. No, really! :) pic
I saw your picture when I was googling, it was named as Terran Ghost. wtf? starcraft girl? o.O InfestedHydralisk   14:13, 14 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, I DO like StarCraft, but that is not the right name. That's a picture of KOS-MOS, from XenoSaga. Perhaps someone was confused. I don't think you can find a picture of female Ghost units anywhere...except for Kerrigan... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:19, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

I have a char on GW called Infested Kerrigan xD. Aaaaand, a girl who likes SSBM and SC must be awesome :o InfestedHydralisk   21:09, 17 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Oh, but there is more than that! Let's see...I also like Final Fantasy, Golden Sun, Metroid, Lord of the Rings, Zelda, Fire Emblem, Shining Force, Breath of Fire, Wario, Mario RPG, Chrono Trigger, Pokemon (I was bored, okay?), Yu-Gi-Oh!, RollerCoaster Tycoon, Harry Potter, Sword of Mana, Tales of Symphonia...
 * There are probably more but I forget! Anyway you get the picture. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:31, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

I like nearly all except harry snotter. Metroid is awesome game (samus is my fav character =P), zelda is cool too. Haven't ever heard of Shining Force, Breath of Fire and Chrono Trigger. And when i'm bored I play Pokemon too >_>; InfestedHydralisk   11:41, 18 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Well then you are missing out! Chrono Trigger is one of the best games of all time, and Breath of Fire is a famous series as well. Shining Force is "old-school" by today's standards but still worthwhile. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:43, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I have Sega Smash Pack II somewhere, that has Shining Force on it. Pretty sure its the original one.  Think I beated it once. &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 15:43, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Shining Force is like FFT on roids when it comes to difficulty, it's practically impossible to beat :/ --Gimmethegepgun 14:37, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

An other awesome that you should try is...Red Steel :D It's just so awesome, try it InfestedHydralisk   11:29, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Red steel is a disgrace to the wii. –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 13:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Why's that? InfestedHydralisk  17:52, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Because the game...blows? All decent review sites are flunking it. –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 19:37, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

French
C'est agréable de voir que des étudiants américains étudient le français. Pour la petite boite cependant, en bon français cela donne : "Je vis dans une boîte". ''It's nice to see that some American students take French classes. However, about the box, in proper French the text should be "Je vis dans une boîte."''Utaku Mu Dan


 * She's not the one that wrote the box, that's the   box, go mention it there instead --Gimmethegepgun 14:39, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Not sure what you mean Gimmethegepgun, they are talking about a box farther down the page that I made myself. It is supposed to say "I live in a box." I don't know what verb vis is, but if that is more correct than habite, I'll change it. Thanks for the imput. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:19, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

vandal
with love


 * Hehe, thank you Sarah. But I'm still not as fast as Skuld! I think... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:22, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * oh! by the by, i'm snatching your girl box. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 22:24, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You honor me in the act. ^^ Maybe I can get a title for "Most Userboxes Borrowed by Other Users". [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:27, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

May I ask you something?
Um, Miss Entropy, I wanted to ask you about your vote on the Battle Rage Warrior you disfavoured earlier (I said some stuff in the voting area, but maybe that was a bad idea?). One, is a build okay if it works, just not as good as, say, a Dragon Slash with FGJ? I know it doesn't look great on paper, but it's basically a permanent speed boost, and Standing (same damage boost as Dragon) charges in a couple whacks. :) And two, may I vote on that build, or have I edited it enough that I'm biased on it and can't? Well anyway, you seem like someone who knows a good bit about these kinds of things so I thought I'd ask, sorry to bother you. >< Dark Helmet 22:32, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't like to compare Elites, Dragon Slash and Battle Rage produce radically different builds. Keeping that in mind, I still say Unfavored because you can make a better build with Battle Rage...check the Favored section. What constitutes a good build? Well, that is a subjective question. If there are builds which do the same thing and do it better, that is usually good enough to Unfavor something. If there are similar builds (same elite, weapon, some skills), then it becomes a more difficult question. Like you say, it is an "okay" build, and it does work. But, in my personal opinion (the crux of votes here), it isn't good enough for a Favored, since there's room for improvement. Aside from problems that I mentioned in the vote itself, there are some issues with Battle Rage. One, is that while it does serve like Sprint and "For Great Justice!" combined (but weaker), it does not give an IAS. However because it's a stance that means you can not get an IAS anyways! Which is a problem. Also, let's say you have to change targets, or the opponent gets some Blocks in. If you don't charge up Battle Rage soon, you lose all Adrenaline. Not to mention that every time Battle Rage is activated you also lose it all again...So, the solution is to incorporate more energy-based attacks. I know Standing and Silverwing etc. charge fast. But still, with all the adrenaline (FGJ is an Optional), a skill like Final Thrust would work well. Not so with Dragon Slash because it takes a full 10 to charge, but under FGJ Battle Rage charges again in 1-2 hits, thus enabling constant use of Final Thrust...and that is more effective. But in any case it's all subjective...Finally I'd argue that the build lacks defense. At least taking Shield Bash would be nice.
 * As to whether you have done too much contributing to vote...well, not being an admin and not having checked all the contribution history I can't answer at the moment. But I would say, you should go ahead and vote anyway. You're not the author so unless someone pulls that clause on you it is fine. :) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:42, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Okay, thanks. ^_^ Not sure how to vote... on the one hand it's an effective build, and fun to play, but I understand it's not the *best*, and most anything works to some degree in PvE. :( The problem with Battle Rage is it doesn't go well with Final Thrust (which you mentioned in the talk page thingy), or any sort of healing... so you kind of have to load up on attacks, and then you've got lots of attacks and no IAS, utility, etc. And I know you're not an admin (yet? :o), but you seemed like you knew a lot, and yeah. I've seen you around a lot, even though I don't edit much. ^_^ Dark Helmet 04:19, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, I'm glad we agree, sort of...this is the kind of discussion I'd like to see often with regard to Builds. Sadly that doesn't happen much. :( And no, I'm never being an admin and won't accept nomination either. Sorry. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:25, 21 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, okay. :) Too much bad stuff that comes with being one? And erm, sorry for bothering you *again*, but what do you think of Sun and Moon Slash, or Protector's Strike instead of Silverwing? Thanks, Dark Helmet 19:23, 22 March 2007 (CDT)


 * No no, I just don't want the responsibility. :) And also - it's a talk page lol, you're supposed to "bother" people. Hmm. Silverwing = Galrath = 8 adrenaline for +30 damage or so. It's your very basic and boring Sword attack, but effective once you have high adrenaline gain. Just like Executioner's Strike. Sun and Moon = also 8 adrenaline. It deals damage twice and cannot be blocked. Cannot be blocked is good but pointless if foes won't block, of course. It also deals no +damage, which is meh. Sun and Moon is best used to quickly gain adrenaline and boost DPS. However if there is no IAS and no other attack buffs (weapon spells, Signet of Strength, etc) to boost damage output of regular attacks, there is not much point to Sun and Moon. Better off taking Silverwing in that case, since you get more net benefit.
 * Protector's? Well, that is a good spike skill, common on a Hammer user. Not so much for others though. Protector's is used not so much because you expect the large damage bonus but more because of the 1/2 second activation time. Since Battle Rage doesn't give IAS this is good. Battle Rage also makes you move faster. That means you can chase fleeing foes and you have a better probability of landing Protector's on a moving foe. All very good things. Bull's Strike is also good for that purpose. I don't know if Protector's would be better than Silverwing, since really I would use both...tch. Silverwing = good and consistent damage with no conditional. Protector's = conditional same damage as Silverwing, higher DPS from 1/2 second, uses energy and not adrenaline; recharge means you could use Silverwing more often with a Battle Rage build. Meh. Like I say, I would prefer both at the same time. But in the context of the build. Stick with Silverwing Slash, it fits the build best (as a standalone skill) and gives the highest nonconditional damage. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:31, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

"RE
Insert Heading ==" == Oh, I have known my RFA was dead for a while. I just don't see the point in trying to fix a build section that is gonna get wiped shortly, but, I am still an insomniac, and if I am not editing something on the Wiki at 2 AM, what else am I gonna be doing.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 01:15, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * How bout playing Guild Wars? Btw, please don't do RE: posts, it's general etiquette to keep discussion on as few pages as possible so as to not clutter and also because posting a reply in a different place breaks the flow of conversation. I understand that this way gets my attention better but I do watch the Talk pages of people I ask questions of, waiting for responses... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:18, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

discussion
from Build:E/N Hurricane..."not as strong as the Build:N/W Jaguar Sword, melee-mancer anti - Jagre 01:49, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You are kidding? There is no comparison between a frontliner and a backliner. Completely different classes as well. I know that you luv your build but this is a bit silly. Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 02:05, 21 March 2007 (CDT)"


 * although the Build:N/W Jaguar Sword, melee-mancer anti does not quite fit into either one of those categories, it is definately not a front-line character - as no caster-primary build should be thought of as. Just because they weild a sword doesn't mean they're frontline.  The same is true for sins, and IW mesmers, which would be in between mid and frontline.  The Jaguar Sword meleemancer is a midline character, which is farther back than even sins and IW mesmers.  Plus it definately way stronger than the Hurricane build IMO.  Jagre 02:38, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * How can you possibly compare a Sword/Blood build to an Orb Spam/KD build? They are absolutely nothing alike.  I mean that is just poor voting.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:41, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * if an unfavored build is stronger than an untested build, then the untested on belongs lower than the superior unfavored one. simple as that. THAT IS NOT WHY I VOTED UNFAVORED ANYWAYS.  see Discussion Build talk:E/Me Hurricane Jagre 02:47, 21 March 2007 (CDT)


 * furthermore see Build talk:N/Me E-Denial Pressure; if my build gets unfavored then LOGIC requires me to hold all other builds to the same standard. I'm sorry.  Jagre 02:56, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Erm.... why do you have a link to a tested build I made....... Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 02:58, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

That's a very flawed theroy. Solus  02:50, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * do you think that if a build gets un-favored, and then another build gets made up that is WORSE than the unfavored one, that it belongs in the favored category? Jagre 03:02, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * That's not what anyone said. Please do not misrepresent our views.  What we are saying is that you can't say one build is WORSE than another if the two builds share nothing in common.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 03:04, 21 March 2007 (CDT)


 * "Since my build was voted unfavored, should I now hold all other builds to that same standard? That they must be better than mine to get a vote of favored from me? Jagre 06:00, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, your build was horrible, so therefore, you should hold builds to a much much higher standard than yours. --Theonemephisto 16:22, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * that would force me to vote even more than half of the builds in "tested" as unfavored. Jagre 21:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)" Jagre 02:51, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * So wait.... if I have a crappy Elementalist build that can outdamage an incredible Monk build, I should vote unfavored on the Monk build? Comparing a mid-line N/W to a backline E/Me is doing just that.  The builds have nothing in common, and yest you insist on comparing them... Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:53, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) I did not compare the two builds whatsoever
 * 2) No, you should not vote unfavored
 * 3) in regards to: "if I have a crappy Elementalist build that can outdamage an incredible Monk build, I should vote unfavored on the Monk build? Comparing a mid-line N/W to a backline E/Me is doing just that.  The builds have nothing in common, and yest you insist on comparing them... "
 * please do not misrepresent MY views, especially if you are going to ask me to do the same for you. Jagre
 * Asking the same questions over and over again isn't gonna change anyones mind you know. Aside from that, you did try to compare the two builds.  The comment may have been stricken, but you did write that your build was better than the E/Me build.  "not as strong as the Build:N/W Jaguar Sword, melee-mancer anti."  I am not misrepresenting your views, you did try to compare the two builds.  You cannot possibly deny that you wrote that comment.  You also cannot deny that that comment directly compares the two builds.  Done and Done.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 03:08, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Sorry Jagre, you make no sense what so ever. Solus  02:54, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I have to agree with Solus here. Comparing unalike builds for different proffessions, with different skills, different purposes, different everything, and trying to say which is better really isn't possible.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:55, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

if one build gets unfavored then logic requires you to hold other builds to the same standard. I'm sorry. Jagre 02:59, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * No, that isn't logical at all. If I help all Monk builds to the damage standard of an Elementalist, there wouldn't be any vetted monk builds.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 03:00, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeh. It's stupid to say things like that, because then, only warrior and a few Dervish builds would ever be vetted (as they have, unquestionably, the best DPS in the game). Your N/W doesn't do as much as a Dragon Slasher (or Shock Axer) and doesn't pressure like a Backbreaker war. However, that doesn't matter; builds are judged based on how well they do their job in comparison to other builds trying to do the same job. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 03:05, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

I am no longer going to respond to this page. Jagre 03:08, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

But you made such strong points ^_^ Solus   03:12, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Well, that was fun, no? Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 03:13, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Oh I get it now, you guys just wanna be friends right? Jagre 03:54, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

I thought you weren't posting here anymore :? Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:54, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Enough. All of you. Jagre, if you get easily riled up, I suggest not reading pages that will "push your buttons," as it were. At least stay away from this talk page/that build page for a day or two, and cool off, to minimize possibility of anyone involved breaking GW:NPA. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 03:56, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Wait, I thought GW:GARES was the real name of the policy :) Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:58, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm... we appear to have kind of hijacked Entropy's talk page and gotten a little off topic... sorry 'bout that Entropy. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:56, 21 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I dun care, talk happens and I think it's good. Surely it isn't a bad thing for one's talk page to be a forum, right? :) Btw, gg Auron for mitigating. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 18:44, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Linking to Wikipedia
For where it says you're a tomboy, try typing Tomboy. It will show up as a regular in-wiki link with a slightly lighter blue font and minus the outside-links box. --Mgrinshpon 21:14, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * link also works btw. –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 23:50, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, awesomeness. Thanks much :) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 18:44, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * blah is even faster :P &mdash; Skuld 10:13, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

Hmm?
hehe =p InfestedHydralisk   18:52, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * What makes you ponder? I'm just curious... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 18:54, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * So many games you play o.O InfestedHydralisk  [[image:Shadow_Prison.jpg|19px]] 18:55, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * What, so girls can't play video games? I'm hurt :( [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 18:57, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * /sorry ok erm...*hands over money where you can buy games from*, better now? :) InfestedHydralisk  [[image:Shadow_Prison.jpg|19px]] 18:59, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Hehe. No, I dun mind seriously...I know it is kind of unusual. Most people say the same thing..."What? You play SSBM? No way!" And then I say all the other things and they look at me as if I'm crazy. I dunno. I guess in society today, if you're a girl and you play video games, that makes you a nerd...or a prude...And if you're a tomboy then why are you inside so much?? But that's just how I am, so what can I say... -.- [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:02, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think you are a nerd, but, let's have a heavy SSBM fight once, or maybe better...a SSBB one (if you are planning to get it)....all those n00bs here in the neighberhood *sigh* InfestedHydralisk  [[image:Shadow_Prison.jpg|19px]] 19:06, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

anyway, I'm going to bed now, gooooooodnight InfestedHydralisk   19:10, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah man, that would be great...except maybe you don't live in CA eh? :) Brawl ftw, I'm stoked for that but can't do nothing but wait atm >.> Too many rumors and fake "facts" coming out anyways. Hmm maybe I should make a SSB box... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:13, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Nope, I don't live in CA...and yeah...I know how you feel with all that waiting for Brawl *sigh*. Oh, and how about this?

not bad eh? ;) InfestedHydralisk   10:22, 23 March 2007 (CDT)


 * <3 <3 <3 I should get a bigger image though. And everyone knows the Black armor looks the coolest... I'd love to test against you though. I do best in 1v1 after all. :) Oh well. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:57, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

Big enough now? :) And yeah, black armor ftw :D to bad you live far away from my place :( guess we'll have to wait till SSBB and then we can fight, I'd love to beat people :D InfestedHydralisk   09:21, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

And btw...can I also be in Class A Wiki Usersfor some reason? (tell me if you know a good reason >.>) :D InfestedHydralisk   17:39, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 * And I'm class A because I wiki more than I wars.&mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 08:43, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

>_>
Whoops >_>. thanks for noticing that on iw page, i need sleep heh. -- Xeon 14:49, 24 March 2007 (CDT)


 * It happens to all of us on Wiki sometime or other Xeon, no worries :) Thou sometimes I worry about folks like us who stay up late on Wiki. Makes me glad that it's a hobby and not a real job. >.> [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 14:57, 24 March 2007 (CDT)


 * mmm, yeah, i took a month or so break recently so im charged for awhile. I dont mind this hobby, it comes with great side effects. GL . -- Xeon 15:01, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

DE
Your comment was moved to the Talk Page of the article in question, as per Skuld's request. It keeps the front page clean, and the discussion on the page made for discussing things. -Auron  19:06, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Oh I see. Well it would be nice if DE could mention that in the Edit Summary. I check the history and there is no comment - wham! - my writing is gone so I assume deletion. And ofcourse checking DE's talkpage didn't occur to me immediately either. Thank you for informing me. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:12, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Yeah, I'm sorry about misleading you. I was honestly attempting to conform to Skuld's request and since no one else had complained about Skuld or me moving the comments, I just didn't think to leave anything in the edit summary.  Sorry 'bout that.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:48, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Tempting, but...
I wonder if it would be breaking GW:NPA to make a "List of Noobs" on my userpage. (T/C) 21:29, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh yes. --Dirigible 22:23, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Do it I dare ya ;-) --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 11:39, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

RE: The widespread lack of user experience on GWiki and the Build section.
Entropy:

Despite the general lack of experience in this community, not a single person's legitimate contributions to Guild Wiki are deserving of spiteful, bare, or disrespectful comments.

Before posting a comment, ask yourself, "Would I find this helpful on my own Build discussion?" and, "Is this helping the Wiki and other users?" If you don't answer yes to both of these questions, rant about it on your User Page or don't post it at all.

Having said that, please re-read what you posted on my page:

"The vetting system may be idiotic, but so are a vast majority of the builds - and their posters. You don't have to test a crap build to know it's crap"

These statements imply that the author of the build in question, Nova, is stupid for having posted a build at all; additionally, they suggest that the very idea of testing most builds is beneath you. Now, do these implications lead the Wiki in a direction of better articles and a community of respect?

In my opinion, no, but perhaps you may disagree.

Regardless, try being more constructive, Entropy. Perhaps then you will avoid the risk of hurting the goals that we all share for this Wiki. GrammarNazi 23:45, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


 * It's a bad build. It's a stupid build. Arguing that I need to test it before commenting is stupid. Would I test a Mending Wammo? Or a Starburst Warrior? Didn't think do. Nova is stupid for posting a stupid build. Testing a dumb build is beneath me, yes. I would find my comments helpful on my own Build discussion, and I feel that it was helping the Wiki and other users: (A) It tells me that I have made a serious error in judgment as to my capabilities to make good Warrior builds. (B) I'm helping to rid the Wiki of bad builds and in doing do, discouraging bad build tendencies in inexperienced users who may be fooled into thinking "backbreaker + JI = spike lolol". Call me spiteful, bare, or disrespecting; I call it being blunt about the honest truth. It is nice to pull the FlowerPower Wiki facade on me, but meh is all I can say.
 * As to being constructive, lol? Check my contribs. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 09:47, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * GW:NPA. "Nova is stupid for posting a stupid build" <---  Comment on content, not on the contributor. Here's the part that you're missing: No one is begging you to post on those build pages. If you find a build "beneath you", feel free to move away to another; drive-by insults help no one and are welcomed by no one.
 * Unfortunately for you that "FlowerPower Wiki facade" has a very strong footing on this wiki's policy, with GW:NPA, GW:AGF and GW:YAV, so if there's something you can't do about it is to dismiss it so nonchalantly. Please be more careful with how you interact with other wiki editors. --Dirigible 09:57, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * So who is begging the inexperienced editors to post their mending whammos and starburst warriors? If we're going to use faulty logic, at least use it on all sides. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 10:10, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, the logic stands just fine. No one is begging them to post their whammos, but there's a policy that openly allows them to do so. Feel free to point out to me where is the policy that allows Entropy to call another contributor stupid because he posted a "stupid build" ? --Dirigible 10:25, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You make a blanket statement, I counter with a blanket statement, you rebutt with a specific statement that had nothing to do with what I was saying. That's flawed logic. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 11:29, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I made a blanket statement: No one is begging anyone to do anything on the wiki; and I think that is true, if anything happens around here is because people have fun doing it, and not because they're expected to or anything of the kind. After making that statement I proceeded to expound on that idea: if you don't want to waste your time with whammo builds that are "beneath you" (as Entropy wrote), then don't. Or to put it in another perspective, if you don't want to waste your time making galleries of armor pictures, don't; do something else you want to do. Doing something you don't want to do, (such as voting and commenting on that whammo build) and using that as an excuse to be rude and offensive towards others is not fine, because the excuse is not valid (if you don't want to be there, then why are you there?) and the personal insults are against policy.
 * You then made a blanket statement: No one is begging inexperienced editors to post their whammo builds here either, which just happens to be the exact same statement I made, simply applied to inexperienced players and their builds.
 * I replied specifying why the blanket statement I first made is still valid, even in the particular example that you brought up. Yes, no one is begging the inexperienced players to submit their builds either, whether they are bad or good. And then I went further in order to clarify that statement, by adding that even though they are not begged/expected to post those builds, they are allowed to and (as long as they're not  breaking any policies  while doing so) encouraged to.
 * Now where is the faulty logic with that? I'm applying that blanket statement to all those involved, Entropy, Nova, you, myself and everyone else. Not a single one of us is being begged to do anything; we're allowed to contribute on this wiki and encouraged to do so, as long as we can respect and conform to the different policies that govern this site. Hopefully that clarifies this. --Dirigible 12:33, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Entropy, even the author of something trite, overused, and useless such as a Wammo build is deserving of respect in the eyes of the Guild Wiki policy. (An exception is something like W/Mo PWNZORLAWL and the like ;) Anyway.)

Not you, I, or anyone in this community is permitted to insult the intelligence of an author, regardless of how much you personally disagree with what they've presented to the community, as long as their intent was in the right place.

That being said, I do not disagree for a moment that a Build should be pointed out as stupid when it is stupid. If somebody posted a build that tried to do too many things at once, for example, I'd Unfavor it and post "This Build is spread too thin. It needs to specialize in order to be more effective. Try removing Skill X, Y, and Z and replace them with A, B, and Res Sig." A statement like this teaches the author what to do next time so they don't make the same mistakes (or the same ineffective build pages). The notion of improvement is what many members of this community neglect in most, if not all, of their votes.

If I were to do what many in this community do, I would say "This Build is stupid, why did you even bother posting this?" These statements merely antagonize the author and do nothing more. They don't improve the article, they don't refine the Build, they don't teach the author anything - the only thing they do is make the author feel stupid and the commenter, immature.

Here's an example of the most direct way that you can follow the policies outlined in Guild Wiki, with specific information for Nova's build. "The goal that you've laid out for your build - to do damage to a knocked-down foe - is much more effective with Devastating Hammer, Fierce Blow, and Heavy Blow. Judge's Insight is unnecessary."

Alternatively, you could do what I did. I helped Nova realize the flaws in the Build, as well as the Strengths.

If not for the Wiki, aim to be constructive for yourself. Insulting people over the Internet, especially at a fansite, just makes you look infantile. GrammarNazi 14:07, 26 March 2007 (CDT)


 * To address something you said above: "As to being constructive, lol? Check my contribs." Being constructive elsewhere on the Wiki does not mean that you are permitted to be destructive elsewhere. I don't know where you got that impression, but it would be wise to check your sources. GrammarNazi 14:10, 26 March 2007 (CDT)