The Introductory Paragraph.

Even so, it's perfectly possible to come up with facts indicating that windmill is difficult to train. One could compare the minimum and maximum number of monster kills required to obtain exactly 100 training experience and find that the maximum is much higher than the minimum. Or one could note that even looking only at the minimum number of kills required, windmill requires more kills than any other skill in the game to rank.

It's the same as the reason for including efficiency in the Healing table. Is the efficiency subjective? No, it's a fact. Is the decision on whether to include it in the table in the first place subjective? Yes. Anyone could hypothetically calculate efficiency themselves, but most people won't, and it's something people would likely overlook if it weren't in the table. In the same way, facts could be highlighted demonstrating that windmill is difficult to train. The decision to highlight them would be subjective, but the facts themselves would not.

Uh, efficiency ratios are standard measurements taken from the JP wiki (also used in other skills), which has repeatedly shown its reliability and validity (much more than this wiki, especially with the numbers tested and viewed by many more players than that of NA.) Oh and I am the editor that started the introductions. Had the introduction been kept, I would have removed the part about combat power in Windmill on my own, (in fact I was going to revert your edit when Tellos removed the whole thing) as it is not 1)not newbie friendly 2)does not flow with the rest of the intro; the intro cannot contain info on Combat Power and still be a intro, because it had nothing to do with the topics of what is previously said in the intro. Although the policy does not state anything about introductions, I personally have my own rules (on my user page) on making it:

• Write Introductions for all the skills. The intros must give more information than the article already has (non-redundant) and must sound (new) user friendly, explaining generally what the skill looks like, what it does, and usefulness.

Seeing that no one has added a new intro to skills since I last started, I would be in favor of removing them because I myself would never be able to cover all the skills. Also, I also thought that it was not possible to write an objective introduction and still follow the premises above.

I do however strongly object any subjectivity, or implied subjectivity in the in-game info (anything other than the intro) that could easily be stated in a neutral tone, especially with a recent editors edits and with past incidents, and I have no doubt that other editors are also frustrated by this. It is possible that the introductions may encourage such edits into the article and we do not want those type of edits to occur in the future. Thus, it is best to remove all the introductions so that such edits will be minimized.

The efficiency ratios weren't taken from the JP wiki. For one, the JP wiki lists them to two decimal places while this wiki only uses one. For two, I'm the one that put the efficiency ratios in the Healing article in the first place.

Revision as of 01:58, 9 April 2008 And how do you know user:Ziv did not look at the JP wiki and got the idea of HP/MP efficiency and rounded the decimal places? At that time, most of the info was only taken from JP wiki.

I am user:Ziv. I can't log on to that account for whatever reason, probably because the forums don't accept 3 character usernames, and not even the password recovery function works. I created a new account because it was too much trouble trying to contact someone about it.