User talk:130.58

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 (Untitled) 2 EDS 3 Thanks 4 Builds 5 Guild Proposal 6 Question

[edit] (Untitled)

Don't forget to release your work over on the GWiki under the FDL. =) Rapta 21:01, 7 February 2007 (PST)

GFDL is annoying. Public domain really is easier. — 130.58 (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Easier than signatures, at least! (Also, I beat you to it.) --Fyren 21:09, 7 February 2007 (PST)

I noticed. You, sir, rock. — 130.58 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2007 (PST)

I demand a dna test! — Skuld 00:06, 8 February 2007 (PST)

*lick* — 130.58 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2007 (PST)

[edit] EDS

Hope you don't mind me using you in the example. I know that you ain't a officer too ;)Aratak 00:20, 8 February 2007 (PST)

No probs. Good to see that little logo from my Guildwiki userpage being put to good use. — 130.58 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Also, maybe I should become one. >.> — 130.58 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I saw that. :P — Gares 09:01, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Well, you did offer at one point. I'll think about it when I'm done with this college crap. — 130.58 (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2007 (PST)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the tip. I knew about that, but I must admit I have never used it. Great hint =D Ale_Jrb^talk 08:59, 13 February 2007 (PST)

[edit] Builds

is it better to pick the most canonical version of a build, the most effective, or present a handful of alternatives together?

Ohh how I wish there were canonical versions of builds, that would save us a lot of trouble. But since ANet is unlikely to ever declare them, I can only point to the example I made over at Starburster. --Xeeron 08:32, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Something about the formatting you used definitely clears up a lot of potential conflicts before they ever start. I think it's the fact that the build is presented as a core concept + side skills rather than one monolithic bar right off the bat, perhaps? — 130.58 (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2007 (PST)

By "most canonical" I mean "closest to standard". — 130.58 (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Well, it should be "closest to what is most common" in my mind. But the problem will really only arise for the example builds (the subpage), since the main article is (and hopefully should always be) written very general. There might be some discussion about what is more common, but I feel that 95% of the talk page hate will go away once builds start being descriptive and stop being rated. --Xeeron 15:23, 14 February 2007 (PST)

[edit] Guild Proposal

Can you comment on this? — Gares 10:59, 21 February 2007 (PST)

I'm not sure what to say. — 130.58 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2007 (EST)

[edit] Question

Hi, I'm leaving this message here because I found your name on the Bestiary/NPC.. formatting talk pages @ GuildWiki. We're currently trying to create a formatting guide for it here as well, but so far without sufficient response. I'd appreciate it if you could drop by and leave your comment(s). Initial discussion started here, but is continued here. Thanks in advance ;). --Erszebet 09:31, 5 March 2007 (EST)