User talk:Honorable Sarah/3

From GuildWiki

< User talk:Honorable Sarah

Userpage

rantful was sarah

Talk 5 4 3 2 1

Contributions

[edit] Nighfall

I know its a little bit crazy but you shouldn't use FPE when talking about Nightfall.—├ Aratak ┤ 12:27, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

? why not? they had one for Factions, do you think they won't have one for nightfall? --Honorable Sarah

12:28, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

i just got that. i always thought it was Free Preview Event, not Factions Preview Event. --Honorable Sarah

12:32, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

:D —├ Aratak ┤ 20:31, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Sundering mod

Need? --Lemming 17:13, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

i'm thinking that might be a bit premature, since i don't have a narrow range sword to use it on. i'm not entirely certain i can mathmatically seperate the penetration right now. i need to do some tests and play with the spreadsheet before i can prove if that test is viable. maybe in a few days? --Honorable Sarah

17:16, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Sure, it's not like my mule needs the spare inv space. :p --Lemming 17:21, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

[edit] reverting of user talk pages..

Hi sarah, im not sure how 2 send messages like u did so im just gonna talk on this. I only saw a flesh golem animate a bone fiend once. My character died and then the golem raised a fiend. Ill try and get a pic asap. - Lord Aiedail----------------- I thought a while ago we decided not to revert changes a user makes to his own user namespace, unless the user was attempting to revert a ban notice or a discussion on that ban. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 12:11, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

normally i'd agree, but that talk page has a ton of useful discussion on it. i'd rather it not be consigned to the history. --Honorable Sarah

12:12, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Copy and paste the content somewhere else then. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 12:49, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Or work on this: GuildWiki:Redirects -Panther 13:02, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Or stop harassing editors and do it yourself

(talk) 13:39, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

my goodness your bitter. look, stuff happens. i argued vehemently to break optional in the build templates, but it's still being used. you don't see me spamming peoples talk page, deleting useful discussions or making a nuisance of myself. this is a community project. Join the community or stop messing with it when you don't get your way. --Honorable Sarah

13:49, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

If it has a ton of useful discussion on it, then the discussion most likely can be moved to another talk page, so I don't see it as a problem. (heck, if it IS useful discussion, it shouldn't be left in the user talk page which is hard to find in the first place). -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 13:48, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

I agree with PanSola. If there is valuable content, then either move or copy the discussion to another thread that is more appropriate to the subject - or even tag it as an archive within your own user-space talk pages. I've never seen value in forcing a user to keep content if they really want it out of their user space - forcing the content to stay can cost the community a potentially valuable contributor, or even result in spawning retaliation in the form of vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:59, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

i wen't to go do that after PanSola sugguested it, and found the page deleted. looked at the policy page and someone has already pasted the conversation there. --Honorable Sarah

14:01, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Moo. --Karlos 14:19, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] I love you

I officially love you for being the first person I've met on the wiki who stands up for my language. "I'm using HUG! on Honorable Sarah!" -- Sunyavadin 18:41, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Which is why I found it so odd that when I looked for her userpage User:Honourable Sarah it didn't exist! :) --Spot 12:22, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

ya, we went over this on User_talk:Honorable_Sarah/1#Where_are_you_from?. british soul, american citizenship. --Honorable Sarah

12:28, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Flesh Golem (Monster)

moved to User talk:Lordaiedail

[edit] Editting

Grr, Cats, eh? Thanks for fixing up my first GuildWiki article with the Paramedic. Paragon City 09:08, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

categories. did you know that [[:Category:PvE Builds]] is capital, but [[:Category:RA builds]] is not? i need a robot to fix that... or some chocolate and a stress ball... i haven't decided which yet. --Honorable Sarah

09:13, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

we are the borg. :) do we want these lowersase? i want to make sure bofore submitting these edits

(talk) 10:01, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

they should be lowercase except proper terms. they should all be like the new [[:Category:RA builds]]. [[:Category:PvE Builds]] will be easy to move once the PvP build sorting is complete, because then the only changes will be the 7 or 8 sub-categories, but [[:Category:PvP Builds]] has several hundred articles in it. soo either a robot to fix it, or a stressball and a chocolate orange to make me feel better about it. --Honorable Sarah

10:06, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

that's a yes. chocolate oranges are good.

(talk) 10:07, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

can we make some admin guy fix the category?

(talk) 10:20, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

well, aren't you eger, i'm doing that now. take a look at the "what links here" on those delete tags and fix them, if you could. --Honorable Sarah

10:24, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

i thinks i will leave the talk pages be, right?

(talk) 10:36, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

You know, I happen to have one of those. That's how Category:Game updates got moved. :p Just let me know if you need it to do something. ^^ — Galil

10:58, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

considering 47 applied 100+ edits with a mere implication of a suggestion from me, i think i have my mass edits covered. >;) --Honorable Sarah

11:04, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

It would seem so. But for future reference. :p — Galil

11:05, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

how do those bot thingys work? is it just a program? or something...

(talk) 11:43, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

it's a script, usually perl script, that makes a predefined set of changes to thousands of articles. --Honorable Sarah

11:57, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] U > ST47 = lol

pfft. too slow :P (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

i have my prize, i beat skuld to a revert once. ;p --Honorable Sarah

09:57, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] stupid wiki question of the day

what is a patrolled edit? --Honorable Sarah 14:55, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Patrolled edits don't have exclamation marks in recentchanges (for logged in editors; anonymous editors don't ever see them and can't mark as patrolled). It's not of much use here, but in large projects it can be worthwhile to make sure someone other than the editor has looked at every change. The exclamations might only show up if you're using the "enhanced" recentchanges. --68.142.14.65 15:14, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] New Guy :) About Skills page

moved to User talk:Not a fifty five

[edit] Sorry to bug you again

XD but who should I go to for asking any other questions? I wouldn't wanna bug you all the time if you dont like live on guildwiki XD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Not a fifty five (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 August 2006 (CDT).

no, you did perfect. this is the message box. --Honorable Sarah

09:04, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] How do you do it?

I look at the recent changes page, and you appear there at an incredible rate! I'm willing to bet you've updated as many thigns today as I have total since I came to he wiki. It takes me forever to find anything that needs updating, yet you have this knack for finding things that need fixing. Care to let us on to your secret of finding these things? My guess is that you have some elite version of Multiminded running, but I can't find where to cap it! --Thervold 13:11, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

i have a couple of projects i keep tabs on. right now i'm just cleaning up the unfavored build categories. appling the new template:unfavored-build with reasons. it's not like i'm doing 200 edits per minute or something. i do have about 12 mozilla windows open thou, where do you think i got the idea for the skill ;) ? --Honorable Sarah

13:14, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Your experienced eye

Hullo! I've recently made (What I would concider) quite an extensive edit to the Assassin page and would appricate it if one of you more experienced Wikians could cast an eye over it.

Also is there a way us newbs can flag edits for a quick check for peer review?

Thanks in advance.JP 13:44, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

those of us who are more AR are more likely to track Special:Recentchanges, which lists all edits. some even more detail oriented then that use patrolled edits (see above) to make sure someone as looked at it. i'm honored you think highly of me. i'll look at it right now. --Honorable Sarah

13:48, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Kuan

What's going on with the new editor? I left him a message, but haven't heard back. Hopefully he stops before he mistakenly edits too many pages. -Auron 00:44, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

i think it's a fame thing, he's uploading all his pictures over the existing ones where ever he can. --Honorable Sarah

00:57, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] hi there

Thanks for talking to me. Im more of a pvp only player. Unfortuantely i think i still need to work out this linking the signature thing. --[jimpy]--

no problem, first; use "--~~~~" to sign commentes. that's automatically replaced with your signature and a time stamp. then all you need to do is change your signature in your preferences to match what you want it to look like. i hope that helps. --Honorable Sarah

11:11, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

Can i ask when u want to "rate a build" how do you do it "properly". ie not sticking something in edit that needs to be sorted by an admin.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimpy (talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 August 2006 (CDT).

if it doesn't already have a rate-a-build heading on the top of the talk page, use [[{{subst:rate-a-build}}]] and save to create one, then place your vote and some text about the reasons under the correct heading. --Honorable Sarah

09:56, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Trollin'

What troll was I apparently feeding? --Xasxas256 18:54, 16 August 2006 (CDT) Or was it more of a general, "I'm sick of this argument, let's stop now" sort of thing? --Xasxas256

between that page and the two touch build there is way to much "Touchers suck! nerf Expertise! Touchers RULE!". it was a general comment on that discussion, not on your comment specifically. --Honorable Sarah

18:57, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

The discussion finished a while ago then was restarted but I don't know if it's run on, none of the posters on the restarted section have replied to anything yet. Only Black Ark has posted in both the old a new section, I don't think the discussion has "run on" yet. I like the fact the we just discuss stuff here, I know that it's not going to change anything, it's the same as discussing the merits of a certain tactic in sport or something, it's just social interaction between interested parties. I like the social aspect of the GuildWiki and this discussion doesn't seem heated or anything...

Also a second point of contention, I noticed you edited the Troll template to include the text "This "mostly harmless" template has a great ability to stop run-on arguments by reminding everyone involved just how silly they look." I don't think Trolling has anything to do with run on arguments, a troll is a disruptive poster. I disagree with your added text, the point of that template, as described by, "The thing trolls fear most is lack of attention. Make 'em starve!" is not to continue inciting a disruptive contributor, the template/idea isn't saying that everyone is looking silly. Thoughts? --Xasxas256 19:09, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Well, I think Escape is in fact a pretty good Elite :{ --Black Ark 19:30, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Untested build

I'm like a kids who think its creation is the best... Why not leaving my build on Untested area? Only three person have vote so far and I don't think they even test the build... witch mean it's still untested ;)

I'm only searching for comment of player who actualy give a try this build nothing mutch.

sorry to bother you anyway Mjöllnir 03:32, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

no problem, i seem to have become the impromptu librarian of builds. anyways, we usually wait on three comments, more if there is some contraversy or anon voters. i rate quite a number of build without actually testing them. some skill combinations simply don't work. i'll take a look at your build and see if it warrents another vote. --Honorable Sarah

09:07, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Mao

u play mao? youll understand y i ask in talk:Alliance_Battle --66.26.40.8 22:25, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

under big push section --66.26.40.8 22:28, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

i'm sorry, i really don't understand what your asking me. --Honorable Sarah

00:08, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Secondaries for a necromancer

I was doing a major cleanup, and halfway through tried to save. I noticed you had just done some cleaning, so I just dumped my version. It was so boring anyway. -- (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

i'm trying to do two edits on these pages. one to merge and one to get the major cleanup done. after that i hope some nice multifacetted person (wink wink nudge nudge) will clean them up. --Honorable Sarah

12:36, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Ok ok, I'll do that later. :) --

(talk) 12:52, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Imperial Sanctum (mission)

I made a useful addition to the Imperial Sanctum mission article, and you just removed it entirely. Why? If it was in an improper section, why not cut and paste it to the correct (in your opinion) section. Please do not go removing other folks' work entirely without written justification for doing so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaktiboi (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 August 2006 (CDT).

it was in the wrong place, a strategy section would be best for that,
it was longer then the article
it was mostly repeated information

if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and put it back in, but please attempt to preserve the flow of the article. --Honorable Sarah

22:23, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

I'll buy that it could be argued to be in the wrong place, but it was not mostly repeated information, else why would I have bothered? And your argument that it "was longer than the original article" is fallacious--there's nothing wrong with extending the content of any one section. The only single bullet point in the original version of the entire article that *alluded* to the possibility of this technique was extremely brief and somewhat misleading, as the technique centers around using a full group of human-controlled characters to body-block Shiro. Summoned minions can help with this, but they alone will not suffice.

My point is that *revising* content of a wiki article to suit issues of clarity, parallel construction, grammar, better chunking or organization, etc. is fine. That's the entire point of collaborative authoring. But to entirely *remove* substantive new content is not in the proper spirit of collaborative authoring. If you think something can be phrased better or put in a better location, do so. Do not just remove other's substantive additions wholesale. Finally, if you disagree with the veracity or usefulness of a new addition, or you think it's redundant, it's not proper for you to unilaterally decide to remove it from the article. You take such concerns to the discussion thread and let the community participating in the discussion thread come to a joint concensus.

Finally, lest you think I'm some wiki newb whose opinion/advice on this subject can be ignored and dismissed, please take a look at this very policy as stated here on the wiki: GuildWiki:Don't immediately delete--Shaktiboi 01:29, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

I'd just like to point this out, it can be found right under the Save page button, the first bullet point, in bold face: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Edited mercilessly includes removing it completely. Also GW:DID refers more to a full page itself. Note that I'm not commenting on what you added to the article itself, I haven't looked at it so I don't know if it should have been removed or not, but if you find having your work "edited mercilessly" than most likely any wiki isn't for you. --Rainith 01:53, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

For what it's worth, I am a professional technical writer (23 years in that role in the software industry). I work with editors on a regular basis and I've served in an editorial capacity myself at some organizations. The phrase "edited mercilessly" does not mean wholesale removal of substantive content. Editing = revision to make substantive content more concise, less ambiguous, grammatically correct, chunked and organized correctly, parallel in construction, etc. An editor who entirely removes substantive content does not remain employed long. If an editor feels that certain content is unnecessary, they check with the writer or other editors first to ensure that it is, in fact, unnecessary. I would expect what I add to this wiki to be changed, revised, moved to a different location, etc. I would not expect new, substantive content that I add to be removed entirely without first discussing the intent to remove it on the "talk" for the article and time for the community to agree or argue the case for leaving the content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaktiboi (talk • contribs) 08:16, August 20, 2006 (CDT).

Actually, edited mercilessly can mean the wholesale elimination of entire sections, especially when those sections are improperlly placed.

In this case, your addition really appears to me to belong more as a team build with a reference from the article, rather than in the article itself.

I also notice that you argue "I would not expect new, substantive content that I add to be removed entirely without first discussing the intent to remove it on the "talk" for the article and time for the community to agree or argue the case for leaving the content.", and yet, your edit was added with no comment in the summary box, nor comments at any time (before or after deletion) in the articles talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

i see the entire section has been readded with no concern for the surrounding article. perhaps it's time that article was stript anyways, it's simply massive for a two minute mission with one fight. --Honorable Sarah

12:30, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

Or split it into two articles, similar to Augury_Rock_(mission) and Guide_to_defeating_doppelganger (incidentally, that guide has also grown long with every possible variant being listed - but that's a different issue). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:38, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

i don't see much benefit in preserving 7 paragraphs for every possible strategy in full form. a one line discription should be sufficent. this really isn't that hard of a mission, i've 6 characters with masters with no real planning. --Honorable Sarah

12:43, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

MOVE it anywhere you want as long as it is linked to from the article. It is useful information for any person struggling with that mission. Do NOT delete the information from this wiki or I will just continue to re-add it. The entire point of the mission articles (which are *spoilers*, btw) is to offer help and suggestions to people who are struggling with the mission. Just because the mission was easy for you does not mean it will be easy for others.

As for Sarah's comment about "preserving 7 paragraphs for every possible strategy in full form", quit being a hypocrite and go look at the Raisu Palace article, which contains an extremely long and detailed blow-by-blow strategy for that mission, which even goes so far as to prescribe specific heros to take, etc. My little addition is merely one bullet point in the "Tips" section with a subordinate numbered list. BFD. Take your sanctimonious, self-appointed "I am the gatekeeper of what knowledge shall be displayed to the wiki community" attitude and shove it. After watching this entire fracas, I'm wondering what other very useful information has been deleted from this wiki by the likes of you.--Shaktiboi 01:14, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Thats a strong accusation.. — Skuld 04:02, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

You're welcome to disagree with the views or actions of any other editor but state your point and back it up with arguments, the personal attacks only hinder your argument. Showing a well regarded contributor (or any contributor for that matter) such a marked lack of respect reflects very poorly on yourself. People will not tolerate a tirade like this regardless of whether you argument is valid or not, the GuildWiki is a community, if you with to be a part of it you need to be able to interact with the rest of the community members. If you wish to continue this discussion do so without the malice, if someone’s words or actions upset or anger you, take a few moments before you respond so can argue your point objectively. It looks like you did a fair bit of work for that article which is good to see but don't get narky when you find that an edit you've made is edited/removed, it happens all the time, this kind of response is unnecessary. Thank you. --Xasxas256 04:39, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm on side of Shaktiboi. The information really should be there and wasn't taking much space at all. Although his last post wasn't as nice as it should have been, I understand why he is getting angry. I don't like it that you are all taking HS' side just because she is a well known contributor and the other is not. Shaktiboi: Just so you know, we are trying to have all the necessary information in the articles and stuff like this happens rarely. When it happens, it usually leads to a massive wiki war, just like this one is doing. Everyone: Feel free to discuss, but don't feed the flames. --

(talk) 05:57, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Doesn't matter how good your point is, you can't phrase it like that, I'd like some sense of civility and politeness here. I don't think I took "sides" I didn't mention Sarah at all except to say she's a well regarded contributor. We don't use moderates here who remove offensive posts, we're all just expected to be sensible and "play nicely" which for the most part works fine. To me, the actual question of what the articles content should be becomes a moot point when language like that is used. I suppose I did in a way jump to Sarah's defense, but nobody should be subjected to that kind of language here. --Xasxas256 06:05, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

True, but the content related points are still important. In these personal discussions you need to think about the content stuff and the personal stuff differently, not combined. If a really agressive and ill mannered contibutor has a good point, it shouldn't be ignored. And this case wasn't that bad. --

(talk) 06:17, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

And look now you've introduced a third point ie Content, Personal and Prioritising Content vs Personal! If Shaktiboi issues some kind of apology I'll be happy although whether or not Sarah accepts is another thing. What Sarah did can be argued for or against but Shaktiboi's attack is not acceptable in my opinion. Perhaps I should butt out but I felt it was necessary to interject, once a personal attack has been made, it tends to escalate and further objective discussion on the topic at hand become increasingly difficult. --Xasxas256 06:31, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Sorry, my comments to Sarah stand. She was ethically wrong and violating stated policy to just delete my substantive addition without first taking it to discussion. No one contributor is a self-appointed determiner of valid versus invalid content. She could have revised my addition to be more concise to her liking or moved it to a more appropriate location. I was objective in my original rebuke, yet she continued to press the issue as if she were the lead author or information architect of the wiki, which she is not. I participate in multiple business-oriented and hobbyist wikis, and this type of unilateral self-appointment is detrimental to the community. She needs to hear my thoughts on the matter regardless of how harsh. It's not like I didn't give first give her a chance to see her error in a less confrontational manner. FWIW, I'm quite happy with the abbreviated version of my content addition that is now displayed in that article. THAT is the type of action I would expect a responsible wiki contributor to take with my original submission. Not a wholesale deletion.--Shaktiboi 09:52, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

I just wanted to chime in to say that I like that Barek found a happy compromise where the necessary information is there, but does not overwhelm the original information. I appreciate Shaktiboi's contribution, because although I consider myself a decent player, I had trouble with this mission the first few times I tried it. I find Honorable Sarah's argument that she got Master's on it with 6 characters with little planning, so this section isn't necessary, a bit presumptuous. If that was truly the case, we wouldn't really need any strategy sections, because we're all experts, eh? :) Please don't see this as an insult, HS, I still hold you in the highest regard. --Spot 10:08, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

why does all the fun stuff have to happen while i'm asleep? this mission is two minutes. two minutes. that article takes 15 minutes to read even before the addition. the article needs to be shortened to give an overview of the mission for someone who's not played it before. it does not need a "blow by blow" battleplan for one fight. i'd argue that the Raisu article is two long as well, but that's a long mission with a lot of objectives.

your assertion that it is valuble is based on the fact that you wrote it, rather then an unbiased assessment of that article. someone needs to go through and prune it. granted i'm no longer unbiased, but unless someone steps up to do it, i will. --Honorable Sarah

10:12, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

It's two minutes if you succeed. I might be underscoring my own lack of skill, but I've been in a few pick-up groups where we've failed this mission after 15+ minutes of playing. I can understand that frustration after failing it, say twice at 15+ minutes, one could appreciate some advice and tips. --Spot 10:33, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

i'm not saying it needs to be devoid of strategy, just that the unaccountable pile of text that is there now could be better structured to give relavant information without rambling for 6 paragraphs. --Honorable Sarah

10:37, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

What a pompous, arrogant person you are! Shame on you! Did you even bother to go look at the article's current state before delivering your latest diatribe here? My content has already been revised by Barek to be a short, one-bullet paragraph. You have no business being allowed to run rampant in this wiki, IMO. My assertion that the content addition is valuable is based on the fact that it was *new* information that was *not* already in the article, and that it is *effective* information for people who are having trouble with the mission. Which, btw, quite a few PUGs do. You are a ridiculous person, and if anyone on this thread is owed an apology, it is me, lol. Not that I'm asking for one because it would be meaningless coming from the likes of you.--Shaktiboi 11:24, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

none of this is personal except what your making of it. --Honorable Sarah

11:28, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Now that's going too far. That kind of comments are not needed in this wiki. Although I think that you were right, it doesn't mean that you can can act like that. You are the one who needs to appologise. The article is in good shape now, thank you for the new information there, but no thank you for such comments. :( --

(talk) 15:19, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Please note the content and tone of my original post in this thread. Then please note Honorable Sarah's subsequent comments: "i see the entire section has been readded with no concern for the surrounding article", "your assertion that it is valuble is based on the fact that you wrote it, rather then an unbiased assessment of that article. someone needs to go through and prune it. granted i'm no longer unbiased, but unless someone steps up to do it, i will", and "just that the unaccountable pile of text that is there now could be better structured to give relavant information without rambling for 6 paragraphs".

Also look carefully at the history of the article and you'll see that Sarah stripped the essential thrust of the content addition not once, but twice. It was in fine shape after Barek first shortened it to a single paragraph, but then Sarah subsequently saw fit to put that bullet point almost back to its original form, which was missing three essential details. No apology forthcoming. I stand by my comments that "merciless revision" does not give any contributor license to unilaterally remove unique substantive content. Her doing so in the first place was egregious, her continued *biased* comments defending her desire to unilaterally remove it yet a second time was egregious, and she therefore earned my harsher comments.--Shaktiboi 16:47, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

ok, clearly you will continue to blame me for whatever insecurity you have reguardless of what i do. the content of that article is overly long. i cut the unnessisary, or repeated content. at the time, i did not realize barak was editing that page when i started my rewrite, and i noted as much on Barek's talk page and my changes were more extensive then his. i have not looked at the page since. --Honorable Sarah

17:08, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Just my 2 cents; I had made some minor edits, then Sarah made her changes and commented on my talk page. After that, I made some additional minor tweaks and added a comment on Talk:Imperial_Sanctum_(mission) mentioning additional changes that I believed should be made - but as it was the middle of my work day, I wasn't going to address them at the time. I may tonight after I get home if no one else makes the changes. Feel free to review my comments and post on that thread if you agree or disagree with my opinions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:06, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

I would like to echo Gem's comments to Shaktiboi. I did find that some of HS' comments were a bit presumptuous, but I find that Shaktiboi's comments to be downright rude. My intent replying to HS' comments was to point out the fallacy of some of her logic (in regards to the ease of the mission), rather than as an indication of a personal flaw. None of her actions (and really there are few actions that) can justify your "harsher comments".

A note to HS: your last comments about Shaktiboi's "insecurity" are starting to lean towards personal. Please, don't be baited into a personal flame war. --Spot 13:10, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Flare Spammer

I haven't done the blank vote... Shady 16.27 21 Augustv 2006

i tested it, but never to the extent that i felt confortable to make a judgment on it, so i didn't vote. --Honorable Sarah

10:12, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] progression templates

I noticed you did some recent changes to the progression templates. Good addition of documentation but there appears to be a problem in display. Under the level 20 attribute, it says "N/A </noinclude>" and makes the table larger than necessary. I (think) I fixed a C&P error but it doesn't seem to work change anything. Alas, my being on modem is not helping. Can you fix this? --Vortexsam 17:56, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

ok, i'll look into it now. --Honorable Sarah

18:52, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

i think you fixed it, try reloading your cache or restarting your browser. --Honorable Sarah

18:58, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Yeah, it works now. Must've been on my side; I was refreshing but it wasn't changing; probably due to modem issues. Thanks anyways. Only a few more days before school and freedom from modem >< --Vortexsam 19:03, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Loved your comment

"52) when writing "/resign" all over the ladies room does not allow you to exit the baseball arena, you begin writing "/bug resign emote doesn't work on astro's observer mode" --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 03:33, 28 March 2007 (CDT)" I'm from Houston and I agree completely =P, I was rolling on the floor laughing for a couple minutes after this one. Matrim 20:58, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Honorable Sarah 5,578 edits since March 15, 2006