Find a website

I really need some help... A few days ago I was on this great job portal and now I can not find it. I have checked history on all my PC's, in all browsers - but I just can't find it. What I remember about it:

  • Its a webportal where people can search for job's and job ad's are posted aka job portal.
  • There is video's on job adverts. Both from company's and from people who is searching for the job.
  • Website has a bit of web 2.0 look to it, has darker colors, maybe a bit of a green don't remember now.

Please if you know about this website - post an url here. I have spend last 2 hour searching for it and I just can't find it. Thank you. gcardinal 06:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Game Update: February 06th, 2008

Placed "Build Update" tag on all PvP builds affected by PLeak, Clumsiness, and Ineptitude nerfs. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:22, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Additional discussion should take place regarding viability of various buffed skills and affected builds. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, this needs to be done... I'll try to get some done. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (EST)
I went through the great-working PvE builds and tagged all the ones I thought might need to be changed/archived. And updated the build update template. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 22:12, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Game Update: February 15th, 2008

Removed mesmer builds tagged for update due to PLeak nerf from previous update. Looks like they over-buffed it. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (EST)

New mouse from Razer

From what it looks like this a new Razer mouse - gcardinal 02:31, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Well, that was worthless. :O --71.229 02:36, 29 February 2008 (EST)
meh, only 3 buttons. Pluto 21:19, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
wow...they purposely crap-ified that flash asteroid game to make you want a new mouse...|IntemetIntemet Internet SigInternet| 17:55, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Game Update: March 06th, 2008

Various archiving of builds and tagging of others. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 16:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)

In addition, I would like to concentrate the more immediate update-related effects to the tagged builds here, if possible. On another note, most builds affected in major ways by the update have been tagged with the "Build update" template. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Those specified builds can be found here: Category:Builds that need updatingRapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

just an idea

ok i have an idea for a build for a mesmer, it is a illusion-inspiration magic build.

It might not turn out to be any good but watever.

The skills are

Conjure Phantasm,


Illusion of Pain,

Fevered Dreams Elite Skill,

Conjure Nightmare,


Auspicions Incantation,

Etheral Burden....

If it works thats cool

if it doesnt oh well

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sportsfan93b (contribs) 15:10, 8 March 2008.

You should put these on a build page... I can't really tell w/o seeing the attributes... ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs   14:12, 8 March 2008 (EST)
I've placed your suggested build on your user namespace. It can be found here:
User:Sportsfan93b/Build:Me/any Illusion Magic Mesmer
Cheers. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:16, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Wouldn't Fragility and Fevered Dreams work better if you had a condition spamming build, rather than only one cracked-armor inducing build? spreading around cracked armor is great, but they would be more effective with more conditions to spread...also no self healing skills there. |IntemetIntemet Internet SigInternet| 16:40, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Thoughts on Merging builds?

As per this discussion: Zuranthium 06:21, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Wow, what a great discussion. Zuranthium 18:12, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Lol. What if we made a specific category for builds designed around common Elites such as WoH or RC which list all the builds using them. Then have a general build with a link that lists all the variations, in a category called Variation Builds. The general build would be listed as normal, and then there is something like a tag with the link to a list of the variety of builds in the Variation section. Like a disambiguation page.--Relyk 23:03, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

*cough* Guides *cough* PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 07:29, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Question about posting a build

The instructions say that a build must be tested. I'll admit it up front- I'm not a great player, and I don't have time to play the game all the time- that means I have one character at level 10. I've looked around, and I've created a poor man's build that uses every skill that the 'full build' would have except one- Energy Tap as opposed to Energy Drain. I wanted to know if it still counts as testing if I have everything but one skill, especially if it's simply a matter of a differing level of skill rather than a filler skill. I will, of course, keep the build in mind if I can't post it now. Nole Thoniel 23:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

No, builds do not have to be tested. That is simply a suggestion. Please go ahead and post your build. Lord Belar 23:45, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Alright, thank you. I will post it when I have time. Nole Thoniel 22:37, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
I had a question involving that, the note:
  • Build should have been tested prior to posting it on GuildWiki.
  • Do not submit "ideas" for builds.

On Writing Good Builds. Btw, it says Guildwiki, so I think the article should be edited QQ.--Relyk 22:22, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Game update: April 17th, 2008

On GuildWiki

On Guild Wars Wiki

First, we're gonna get swamped with fragility/fevered dreams builds. Second, a number of farming builds might not work so well after the glyph of concentration nerf, and bsurge got nerfed again. Also, GvG NPCs got nerfed. {{Build update}} will be needed. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 20:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Shiiiit, they nerfed SO much in this. I also expect Dark Pact to be used alot for BSpiking... 70dmg? Fuck yes! ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   21:14, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
And FoMFs.... WTH? 10s CAST??? Oops, l2r lulz. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   21:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

This may be of interest. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 21:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Should we perhaps put a note saying no to submit or vote builds based on this update, beacuse the skills ill be reverted in a coupe of weeks...PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 08:15, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Check Frv's talk page. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 08:20, 18 April 2008 (EDT)


Hi I am new here and cannot "wikify" my skills... how does it work? i tried it like this but it won´t work can someone help me? thx. Breitschleif 11:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

You have to use the <pvxbig> tag to start it. Then you do the skills like [Shock@x] where x is the attribute level. For example, <pvxbig>[Shock@10]</pvxbig>. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   15:14, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Also, see PvXwiki:Style and formatting for a nice template you can copy and paste and then just fill in the info specific to your build. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Barrage [[image:<Insert Skill Name>.jpg|<Insert Size Here>px]]--Relyk 22:24, 27 April 2008 (EDT)


Can we make a search engine or something? I just found out that you can do it this way, but usually I had to backtrack for contests and such, and typing that whole thing in would be a hassle--Relyk 22:19, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Imo, look at the toolbox (under the razer ad). You can use the search box to get to a page, and then click the what links here link for it. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Signature and Show Preview and Minor Edit

Is there a template that people can post for new users that include those?--Relyk 22:31, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

How to sign? (press signature button or 4 ~'s) show preview, the button next to save page, and minor edit-the tick box next to add to watchlist while editing (or preferances if you want to turn it on constantly). It's pointless creating anything for theses, they're all fairly obvious (even to wiki newbies) the only one there might be problems with is signing...even then... PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 13:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Typing it in is annoying tho <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>--Relyk 11:52, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Signature pics

I want to know-how do you put the little pictures next to your name in your signatures? Frvwfr2 has a particularly cool sig. Intemet Internet 18:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Check "Raw signature" and type [[Image:Your_uploaded_image.jpg|19px]] [[User:Intemet Internet|Intemet Internet]]. ~ ĐONT*TALK 00:45, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, i pretty much got it figured out, but for some reason the sig changes when I use it in different places. |IntemetShadow FormInternet| 08:29, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
That's probably a caching issue. For a little while after changing your sig, it's just not sure which one to use so it'll occasionally use your old one. Usually settles down pretty quickly, though. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
well i gots it now tyvm im still kinda noobsauce atm |IntemetIntemet Internet SigInternet|

Nub guide

User:Wizardboy777/Newbie Guide. Needs more help, perhaps can be included on main page when done. I had really frekkin hard time learning wikicode from trial and error, this helps new dudes greatly. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 16:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Hello there, I'm from the official wiki. Some people have been using the PvX logo in userboxes, and I tagged it as a copyvio, sice CC NC-SA 2.5 content cannot be uploaded under the GNU FDL. I'ne now been told that the logo may be a modified version of so the copyright is owned by Arenanet. Is this correct? Is the logo copyright Arenanet or one of the editors to the PvX wiki? Thanks, Indochine 14:07, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

As far as I'm aware, our logo is the product of a contributor on Deviantart (aphraits), used with his permission. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:10, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Found it: poke | talk 15:45, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

PvX2 build categories

I've noticed on this wiki that we're having problems with non-meta builds being presented the same as meta builds and problems archiving builds that are tagged for many arenas (astonishing powers of observation). So ITT, I suggest elaborate schemes to fix this for PvX2wiki.


  • Meta/Non-Meta/Archived
    • Arena
      • Rating

So to navigate your way to the page for Good rated meta GvG builds, you'd go Meta -> GvG -> Good, and to navigate your way to an Other AB team you'd go Non-Meta -> AB -> Other (since AB has no meta, el oh el).

The goal of splitting builds into Meta/Non-Meta is to allow for the theorycraft people inevitably slap together while keeping it segregated from the srs bsnss stuff. Works for less srs stuff too, like PvE, by splitting serious builds and gimmicks and for-fun builds into separate categories. The goal of having an Archived category at the same level of Meta/Non-Meta is to allow a display of how effective the build was at it's height for historical purposes along with removing it from the other two categories with minimal fuss.


Same as we have now, but instead of a single archive template, include the archive in the tags themselves. So a TA build that was great and is now archived, but is still good in RA, would look like this:

Green thumbs up

The PvXwiki community finds this to be a functional build.

Through the PvX vetting system, it has been vetted for at least one arena.

This build has been vetted in the following arena(s):

Mentally change the colors of the arena boxes to reflect their rating/status, please. This structure would necessitate putting the reasoning and date of the archive somewhere else, I'm still working on where that would be. Maybe another subsection in the tag under the arenas. Something along the lines of "This build was archived for TA (if tagged for two or more arenas and only one needed archiving) / TA and RA (if tagged for three or more arenas and only two needed archiving) / All Arenas (if tagged for one arena or needed archiving for all arenas it was tagged for) on ****** for the following reasons:". It'd make the tag longer, but I think it would be manageable.

The main problem with this build is how it would affect voting. Since it encourages voting differently for different arenas, I would suggest either requiring selection of an arena for a vote and allowing multiple votes for each user (as long as they aren't for the same arena) (this would probably require some kind of system to consolidate all of one user's votes into one section so the voting page isn't a complete mess) or allowing votes for different arenas to be cast at the same time (through multiple voting/reason sections).

I have no idea how difficult this would be to code. Also, sorry for the butchered code, CSS is impossible to figure out. :< --71.229 22:08, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

The rating would be crazy. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   22:11, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I know, that's the major weakness of this system. See any way around it? --71.229 22:13, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Maybe make a diff. build namespace for each type, but have all the builds of the same type4 linked. Like Build:TA (Name) Build TA: (name). Then if you want to see a variant for TA, you go there... ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   22:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
That doesn't really make voting much easier, it just changes the voting problem from complicatedness to time-consumption.
Maybe ***/wiki/TA/Build: **** and ***/wiki/GvG/Build: **** and so on, so each arena would have its own buildspace so we don't have to deal with the nightmare correcting names would cause. That would be a pain in the ass to make all the different builds unless it was done automatically, though, and tagging and renaming builds would cause pretty heavy server load since they'd have to be done a few times each. --71.229 22:25, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
MediaWiki wouldn't like it. Pretty sure all pages have to go under the URL http://sitelocation.whatever/wiki/Namespace:ArticleName ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 22:54, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
So have different namespaces. Except that would quickly get rather complicated. If only there was the ability to have a sub namespace... Lord Belar 00:12, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

In general, I like the idea of having area-specific votes. Atm, it's not really well-defined how to rate a build that is good in one area but bad in another. In principle we could then even have dynamic area tags, recommending a build for a certain area only if it's voted above a certain threshold there. The drawback of course is that voting becomes much more complicated. It would need some coding, but on the first look that sounds doable to me. It's basically extending the number of criteria from 3 to 33 (3 for each area, not counting teams). But: the question is if it can be implemented in a user friendly way. Not many people would go through the effort of rating one build on 33 scales. The suggestion to make a different namespace for each area seems coding overkill to me, and doesn't solve the problem. It's about the same as allowing only one area tag per build and then having 'see also' links to the same build for other areas. In some cases it might be even advantageous to fine-tune a build article for the use in a specific area, but it would let the number of builds explode if every build is submitted separately for each area (or cloned later if someone else thinks it's useful in another area). Plus, coming back to the original proposal: we would need a mechanism to decide if (and when) a build is meta/non-meta/archived. So in summary, even though I like the idea, I'm afraid it's far from feasible, at least in the current form. (P.S.: with 'area' I mean gameplay type here). – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 06:59, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Well really, we could drop Innovation as a rating factor. Who CARES how Meta something is, if it is effective? But that would lower the number of rates to 22 instead of 33. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   08:12, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
We could also have the ratings available for those areas which it is tagged for, which should reduce it substantially, but that could be somewhat difficult to code. Lord Belar 12:39, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
I'll think about it. Might be possible. Not sure yet how to display all the ratings on one page in a concise way. However, this is a major change in the rating system, meaning we need a lot more community input to decide if and how we want it, and it will need some preparation and testing time on the coding side. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 17:16, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
How about this, we're changing innovation to a check box, so why not stick a checkbox for Meta? if it is, tick it, if not don't. I'm sure you could then find a way to make them a catagory (say if more than half the votes say it's meta it goes into the category or something). I like the Idea of Dynamic templates, it's something i've wanted for a long time (and i posted it over here when we started using it )sort of...and i did mention ages ago on the AN but i belive it went in the archive, but you id say it was high on your to-do list iirc) As for Archived, i see nothing wrong with the current system of just changing the template, a small disscussion goes on the page and when everyone agrees it should be, the tag is changed. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 17:21, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Sounds reasonable. Some summary box that dynamically shows the current state of the rating is still on my list. The tricky part is to get the category memberships updated without creating inconsistent output or overloading the server. I'm still very busy in RL, so I'm concentrating on fixing small or urgent things atm, but I'll get there. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 17:35, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
This might help with the dynamic templates. Lord Belar 17:54, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Not much. The problem is not showing dynamic information on the build page, but updating the categories. Doing that each time the page is viewed would kill the server, so it has to be done when a vote is submitted/edited/removed/restored. The rating function has to sneak in through the back door to the main build page and change it when needed and then trigger a category update. I'm sure that can be done, but it's not just pressing a button. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 03:21, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

PvE/PvP versions of skills

Should probably be implemented into PvXcode (the developer update listing the planned changes is here). But first, we should decide on how it should be implemented. Here are a few options:

  1. Split affected skills into Skillname (PvP) and Skillname (PvE). We'd also need to decide on how it would handle it if neither PvE or PvP was specified. Downside is for builds that are tagged for both PvE and PvP, though this could be solved by one of two means: for skills whcih aren't all that important and/or have only a small difference between PvE and PvP, leave them off the main bar and put them in variants. For skills that are more important to the build (e.g. - elites) and/or have significant differences between PvE and PvP, we could split affected builds into separate PvE and PvP builds, since the play style or whatever may well be different (e.g. - A PvE ele with lightning orb has much less of a reason to bring shell shock than a PvP ele).
  2. Include information for both PvE and PvP in the mouseover PvXcode description. Downside is that this clutters up the display and wouldn't be consistent, since not all skills have separate PvE and PvP versions. Also, depending on how the skill information is stored, this could require database restructuring or something like that.
  3. Put a button somewhere on the skill panel to toggle between PvE and PvP. This is perhaps the simplest solution (maybe not so much coding-wise, I don't really know enough about how the PvXcode works to be able to tell), though it would require that we (gasp) resize things a little.

There are probably other solutions I haven't thought of. Feel free to suggest something. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 18:48, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I say have somehting like number 1. but instead of skill name (pvp) skill name (pve) just haev skill name for PvE (whic is what it'll be in game if you read the dev. notes from a while back) and then skill name (pvp) for PvP ones (again from dev. notes). otherwise the rest of what you said is fine =p ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 18:58, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Error pages

Problem loading page, unable to connect. Firfox cannot establish a connection to server. This is really annoying...--Relyk Purifying Veil SigRELYK ʞlɐʇ ʎɯ 03:26, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

IE is working fine for me. :) Selket Shadowdancer 03:27, 7 June 2008 (EDT)


We are in need of new contests. Design-a-profession and limited were leet, but they were a long time ago. Suggestions here. Sign after your suggestion, plz.

  • Name undecided:Admins create new, balanced skills, maybe 2 per profession, and whoever creates the best build focused on the new skill will recieve a reward. Dumb Was This Username 19:37, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Name undecided:Best build without an elite skill. Dumb Was This Username 19:37, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Make Wizardboy's DP contest official IMO. Dejh 19:40, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
I have a number of contest ideas written down somewhere, but right now we're not sure what the deal is with the Razer™ contract, as Gcardinal has been largely incommunicado for... a long time. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 23:52, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Make the best build using any number of secondary profession. Completly useless but fun. Darkdawn 21:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Uploading Images

I've searched and searched and see nothing we upload to Guild Wars Wiki or somewhere else? Choytw Talk Debates 10:37, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

ups Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 10:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Unsure where to put this, but just a general question. Is 20 sec too long for a spike to recharge? Dumb Was This Username 22:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Not as long as you can get out of there(shadow stepping, basic survival skills), and as long as you killed the person you spiked first. But you should be able to spike pretty repeatedly, unless you came up with some amazing spike that kills everyone with a 20-second recharge. i can be wrong, thats just my general opinion on spikes. |IntemetIntemet Internet SigInternet| 09:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Depends, if your an assassin, then a 20 second downtime isn't bad really /FrosTalk\ 09:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, the build i had in mind is an HA spiking team, and im unsure if 20 sec is too long recharge. Dumb Was This Username 10:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
For HA, it's quite long. 10-15 sec would be fine I guess. ~ ĐONT*TALK 10:51, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Agreed. It usually isn't be too hard to make a continuous spike, but meh. A really good spike can have a 10-15 sec downtime as long as it does its job well. |IntemetIntemet Internet SigInternet| 11:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
My idea was as follows:


Soul Barbs Deadly Paradox Shadow Prison Dark Prison Enduring Toxin Optional Optional Optional


Signet of Suffering Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional


Each spiker has healing stuff or random other stuff, havent worked it out. It seems perfect cause everything recharges exactly on time. 20 sec recharge is the only prob. IF ANYONE STEALS THIS I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN WITH A CHAINSAWSLEDGEHAMMER AND RAPE YOUR FACE. Dumb Was This Username 11:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, 20s is too long. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   13:27, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
You are better off w/ IV Spike tbh... ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   13:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
20s between each spike is very long and is inferior to IV spike build, as a result nobody would even think to steal your build, dont worry, put your CHAINSAWSLEDGEHAMMER aside and get your pants on again. --Tiger Tiger&#039;s Fury Tigrr grrr!! 13:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Signet of Suffering Mantra of Inscriptions Symbolic Celerity Leech Signet Signet of Disruption Signet of Humility Resurrection Signet Optional

Instant signet cast ftw?Fox007 User Fox007 sig 15:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Where's ur heals? ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   15:30, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
5 of those and 2 healers or so Fox007 User Fox007 sig 15:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Good idea. Dumb Was This Username 18:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Shadow Form

Should I go ahead and archive every SF build (about half of Pvxwiki)?--Crossfire&#039;s Signature 18:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

No the dev updates said theyll be monitoring it. First of all, this has no effect on running. The way Im betting thisll go is that SF will totally fall out of use, A-net will be like "O SHIT!" and find a better way to nerf it. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I archived a lot of them, but not all of them.--Crossfire&#039;s Signature 19:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Stuff cna always be un-archived anyways. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
What'll happen is everyone will overreact and stop using SF entirely, we'll see a little BAAWWWWWWing on Izzy's page, and then in a few months people will start realizing, oops, it's still usable as long as you're careful, which is right how it should be. --71.229 19:05, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I dont think so. Half damage is rediculous. For example, the dagger farmer in Tombs. Was an extreemyl popular build. It took about an hour and a half to complete tombs. If its gonna take them 3 hours to do teh same thing, people will switch back to bp. This update was intended to make SF on par with other famrers, but it made it highly inferior. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Be that as it may, it was completely overpowered before and probably the most imba farming skill in all of guild wars. Although Anet may have overnerfed it, its better than an overbuff. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 21:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

PvX pick-up group page

Discuss. --71.229 17:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

lol — Skakid 17:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
tbh I'm just sick of the clusterfucks involved in trying to organize a flist HA. --71.229 17:36, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
You're better off not HAing than playing with PvXers. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 17:28, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
It's true. Each PvX user in your group increases your chance of losing by 50%. --Ibreaktoilets SignatureTab Moo 17:38, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
Examples: Rawrawr and GoD. *cough* Tab *cough* IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 19:07, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm an exception to that rule - having me makes you 100% more likely to lose. --Ibreaktoilets SignatureTab Moo 19:10, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
That's because you'll just go "PvX group omg" and bring this: <pvxbig>

[build prof=me/mo illusion=12+1+1 heal=12 prot=3][illusion of pain][drain delusions][aneurysm][heal area][Karei's Healing Circle][life attunement][blessed signet][unyielding aura][/build] </pvxbig>--Relyk Purifying Veil SigRELYK ʞlɐʇ ʎɯ 17:20, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Main Page

Has 3 featured builds in each section (untested PvP, tested PvE, etc.). This does not seem to be enough, there is still a large amount of builds not being voted on. I suggest we increase it to 5, (so 5 untested PvP, 5 tested PvP, 5 untested PvE, 5 tested PvE.) IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 23:22, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

You only need 5 votes to vet a build into a category and then move it out of untested features. I'd be willing to bet that if you're not getting 5 votes on three builds when they're featured on the main page then putting 5 builds up won't change that. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 19:17, 5 July 2008 (EDT)


Needs a section that alerts you whenever a build you are watching gets another vote/rollback/restore. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 12:50, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Rip, Shadow, and Power Axe

Why? They are all fucking Eviscerate. They don't need entire pages explaining how to use rip enchantment, powerspike, or DC. They are all pretty fucking self-explanatory skills. --Readem 03:08, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Aggravation. Do that with axes and we'll spend the next six months explaining why it would be a bad idea to do the same thing with Mbane/Cripshot/BA and such. --71.229 03:16, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
No, ranger builds are different. Some are split oriented, while others are for ganking NPC's. BHA is exclusively TA, and strong anti-caster pressure in conjunction with shock. They actually can warrant pages; Shock Axe doubles do not. --Readem 03:25, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, but constantly explaining that gets really old. I agree with you, I'm just not sure if it's worth the drama and the aggravation. --71.229 04:35, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
Point: "We need to merge all these ranger builds!" Counterpoint: "No. We like them they way they are." - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 04:40, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
This isn't about rangers. This is about the same bar, with 8 different pages with only minor variations. We don't need to explain how rip works; just read the skill description. Same with powerspike and the others. --Readem 04:43, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
Ichigo made a Evis guide recently. Just redirect the build pages to it and voila. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 04:46, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
But why have them at all, is what I am asking? They are all worthless variations of shock axe, that make PvX look disorganized and scattered. --Readem 04:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
The links would be useful for new users to find them. If one Evis bar ends up in Good and another in Great, then users can see which are the better options in general. Also, someone looking specifically for Good/Great warrior builds would find the Evis bars listed in the Good/Great PvP builds listings. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 05:05, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
A guide is nice for Eviscerate, but without build deletion. Although it's a one skill difference, each can be meta enough to deserve they're own page (Shock Axe and Rip especially). --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 08:26, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
1 skill difference, especially non elite, is pointless imo when it can easily be added to variants with a note on usage of said skill. Selket Shadowdancer 08:42, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
I agree. I've seen quite a few guides/user articles about one universal Eviscerate build. Every time a new Eviscerate bar is submitted, God kills a kitten. I think just about the only Eviscerate bar to even slightly warrant a separate page would be the Build:W/R_Symbolic_Warrior. ــмıкεнaшк 09:32, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

"They are all worthless variations of shock axe, that make PvX look disorganized and scattered." PvX is disorganized and scattered :O ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 13:32, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

"No. Doing that causes massive, massive, massive, articles. If it's more detailed to explain usage, it deserves it's own page" -Skakid Each bar is used differently I thought. Well the point was...--Relyk Purifying Veil SigRELYK ʞlɐʇ ʎɯ 17:15, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
That's the problem. They aren't. They're the same usage except for one short sentence that might need to be added for people who don't know what they should be shock/rip/pspike-ing. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 17:20, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Well then why haven't they been put in a guide/disambiguation yet, seems like an obviously simple solution. Of course that's what is being discussed right?--Relyk Purifying Veil SigRELYK ʞlɐʇ ʎɯ 17:23, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

The overview

I wish the overview was automatically added on team builds instead of doing it all by hand, would it be in anyway feasible?--Relyk Purifying Veil SigRELYK ʞlɐʇ ʎɯ 23:36, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

See here. We would need a script for that. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 23:40, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
What language would we need to script it in? Work's been slow lately, so I could probably find the time to write something, I'm sure. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 09:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm not quite sure. I don't think that templates can call scripts or not, so we need something like Special:PvXconvert. I don't know how that works, so you might want to ask User:Hhhippo or User:Gcardinal. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 11:18, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I left him a note on his Talk page. Hopefully he can guide this a bit better. Search and Replace is rather painful, but as long as the name value is filled out in each build tag, it could be a lot easier. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Here's a thought: How does the ToC template do it? I mean, it'd be simpler than what we need, but it could be a good start. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Uh.. ToC is a magic word :/ ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 13:34, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, I know, but there's no reason we couldn't find how TOC works. :P Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


Well,if anyone has any, kindly put your links here... BaineImgBaineTheBotter 09:02, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

What? ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   11:50, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Theres an example on his user page lol--Relyk Purifying Veil SigRELYK ʞlɐʇ ʎɯ 23:00, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
Ahh. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   19:52, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Jade Arena Hfff

When I places my new build under Build:Team - Luxon HFFF I received a message that "Actually, I won't do anything, but you should move your comment to Team_-_Luxon_Recall_Faction_Farm, as that is the run in question. This deals with an entirely different quest, and it is a little bit easier at the expense of time" When I places the build info in Build:Team - Luxon Recall Faction Farm and received the message "I removed your edits because I believe that team build deserves its own article rather than being tacked onto this one"

I suggest several changes here

  • 1 Since there is more than 1 way to Luxon HFFF the page called Build:Team - Luxon HFFF should be renamed Scout the Coast HFFF
  • 2 the page called Build:Team - Luxon Recall Faction Farm Should be renamed Jade Arena FFF
  • 3 A new page called Jade Arena HFFF should be made.
  • 4 The page Luxon HFFF should be a directing page to Scout the Coast HFFF and Jade Arena HFFF


I actually agree with the proposed name changes and I'll edit the recall FFF one right now seems I'm here. I do think your build deserves its own article though because while it does work in a similar way it involves diferent usage and notes pertaining to heroes that need to be put into an article which should probably be called Jade Arena HFFF and I don't think that anyone article here should be a main direct but probably a guide portal page for FFF in general which would include not only Luxon FFF but also Kurzick FFF. Selket Shadowdancer 11:58, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Archiving Build:A/any Deadly Arts Spike Sin after update

I found out awhile ago that shadowstepping cancels out aftercast delay. The only way this can be done though is through augury of death and shadow walk because they both have instant activation. I found this out with an earth spike elementalist, which can be found in my sandbox/history:

Augury of Death Sandstorm Shadow Walk Iron Palm Aftershock Entangling Asp Obsidian Flame Dash

When Aftershock was used (and hopefully brought them below 50%), augury activated and I was able to cast the next spell immediately. On another note, casting Obsidian Flame and following with Shadow Walk then Iron Palm showed no effects from Obsidian Flame's cast. Now to apply it do the DA sin. The res sig would be replaced with Shadow Walk, so it would be viable for AB or whatever.

Shadow Prison Shadow Walk Iron Palm Falling Spider Vampiric Assault Impale Signet of Toxic Shock Dash

For this, iron palm would take the 1 second disable from shadow walk, keeping the chain viable. Activating Shadow Walk immediately ofter Shadow Prison will cancel the aftercast and keep the chain as it was originally. The other option for room would be Twisting Fangs, which would then be for RA where Res is needed, though it would lose Vampiric Assault and Impale, but its RA.

The point is Shadow Walk cancels the ACD and would make the build viable. I haven't tested whether this works or not now, but it's worth a thought.--Relyk IkeR e l y k 19:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

General Archival

moved from PvXwiki:Admin noticeboard
Most anything pertaining to VoDways and a few skill changes in the new update need archival judgment. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 19:18, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

A lot of builds with Elites that are being updated may need to be archived because of so many functionality changes to those skills. I also suspect that the update will create a flow of builds duping each other. XD ــмıкεнaшк 19:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
how do you even know what's being update =o? ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 19:26, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
[1], [2] and some other update that will have a huge impact on GvG (I didn't save the screen, though). ــмıкεнaшк 19:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
The update was just made. /excited ــмıкεнaшк 19:54, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, that'll be something users will be looking at in the coming weeks. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 15:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
Archive all the GvG builds that can't be adapted?--Relyk IkeR e l y k 23:03, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Boss Builds Category

Some Boss Builds make good Hero Builds. Can we have a Boss Build category? Kiteeye 22:54, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

No. Quit suggesting this. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   08:24, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Updated Ursan

People have posted the new ursan builds using oath shot or assassin's promise. Wouldn't it be better to just have people bring Air of Superiority?--Relyk IkeR e l y k 16:43, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure using AP or Oath Shot would require using two elites, so I'd have to say you have a point. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 22:53, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
That is, of course, if you, for some god-forsaken reason, can't come up with something better than Ursan to run with the numerous skills you probably have for your primary class. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 22:53, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Usually people dont--Relyk IkeR e l y k 01:35, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

BMs Vote Removals

There are starting to be a lot of issues with people contesting vote removals. It's getting to where the only votes that remain are the ones that agree with a particular BM (and a nightmare happens when two BMs disagree and neither will back down). This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what was intended here since BMs have weighted votes. i.e., they're weighted to counter poor votes. Why insist on driving people away (when they feel slighted because they rate based on how their test of the build performed) when a vote from a BM counters any votes they would've removed anyway? ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 13:36, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

There's also the problem that the majority of voters don't offer any decent/viable reasoning to go with their ratings, so a lot of them have to be removed. ــмıкεнaшк 14:45, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
The 2 : 1 ratio of BM vote weighting to regular user vote weighting is disproportional to the 1 : 500 ratio of BM votes to bad votes. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:46, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
...which can be solved by nerfing regular user votes to 1/500th of a BM vote, or instate 250 new BM's. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:48, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
3 BMs deciding on whether the build is bad or good would solve that (through majority), but that's a lot of work just for one build, tbh. ــмıкεнaшк 14:50, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
...I wasn't being serious. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 16:07, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
(EC) @Mike: I'm not talking about asinine comments on votes or votes without any explanations. @Rapta: 1:500 is a bit exaggerated. I can't believe BMs only count for two votes for one. Maybe a fix would be to increase to 5 votes (500%) since usually there aren't many more votes than that against a BM. This way people can stay happy about having explained votes kept, and BMs are happy knowing that they're getting the ratings to where they feel they should be. ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 14:53, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
500% weight is far, far too much. --Tab MooTab Piplup 14:55, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
What makes you think so? It's the same as the procedure they're currently using: delete everything they disagree with. ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 14:57, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
I actually avoid naziing votes as much as possible. However, it's unavoidable alot of the time given the quality of voting here. --Tab MooTab Piplup 14:59, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Which proves my point. People are getting pissed off and leaving because they feel that they have no say. If the BMs votes are weighted higher, they still get their say, but the BM in question gets the final say. ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 15:01, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Both ultimately acheive the main thing. However, the current implementation doesn't result in the BM's score being absolute, as it is there's alot of builds that get rated either higher or lower than the BM's vote by a considerable margin. 500% would just be too much, the majority of builds are vetted with around 5 - 8 votes. While removing a user's votes isn't the greatest way to make them want to stay on the wiki, it's pretty unavoidable. Besides, I fail to see why we should keep factually wrong votes up. Even with increased BM vote weight, bad voting still has a negative effect on the accuracy of the builds score. --Tab MooTab Piplup 15:09, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
STFU to this conversation. That is all I have to say, as these conversations are stupid and unending. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 15:14, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
(EC @Deals - that is to be used when people are pissed and before NPA is violated correct? Did it even get implemented as a valid procedure?)The BMs vote is absolute now. The growing strategy they use is to remove anything not similar to their vote. Instead, simply delete any non-explained vote and let the other votes stay if they have valid reasoning and can back it up. The end result is the same - the build gets rated the way the BM wants, but they aren't driving away users who are getting tired of explained votes being removed. ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 15:17, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Valid reasoning is left on. Valid reasoning with an invalid score isn't. BMs don't remove anything that isn't the same as their vote, however you have to have a range of tolerance in scoring. --Tab MooTab Piplup 15:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Again, it proves my point that BMs remove any vote they don't agree with. It was just a suggestion which doesn't affect me (since I rarely vote), so if the admins/BMs feel that they don't care about finding a workaround which accomplishes the same thing while keeping more people on pvx, then no skin off my nose lol. ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 15:22, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

(EC){ri}}Tab beat me too it. It;s more about people giving wrong scores for the reasoning, or giving no reasoning what so ever (usually the latter being the main problem) which are removed. Valid reasoning and scores are always kept reguardless of a BM's or admins view, becasue it has the reasoning to back it up, it's only removed if the bm/admin can point out a flaw with your reasoning which means it doesn't deserve the score given. If you feel that a BM as removed some votes injustly, you can take it up with the Bm, and then if no conclusion is met, you can make an appeal to either another BM or an Admin, that is nutral in the situation. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 15:26, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Again, that is a judgment call ending with the BM removing any vote he/she doesn't like. If the reasoning is adequate, let the BM outweigh the vote. Anyway, I've stated what I think would be a good remedy so my job is done. If you all don't agree with it, so be it. Thanks for listening. ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 15:31, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
You might want to check the votes that I've had removed. If you can find a flaw in my reasoning, explain it to me. Check builds such as... well, the GoR Sin thing was pretty epic. There's multiple others. I'll get links if I can. It's really just a matter that a number of ranking members around here seem to let opinion outweigh fact, or seem to believe that fact may not be fact at all. It's really just a bad way of doing things in general. I could point you to Rapta's and Zuranthium's Talk pages for starters. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it's bad for votes to be rendered impotent (hence outweighing them with increased BM vote weight), but that removals blatantly undermine the will of the voters - better to do it behind the scenes so as to keep more people contributing to the wiki. That is my only reason for suggesting the change. ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 01:43, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
This cycle just repeats itself every month or so. Just give up now. We've lost many a good contributor, and I've gained many a good friend and have been nearly banned or actually banned for many such reasons and circumstances. Here in Soviet Wiki, you had best learn to troll, or troll will learn you. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 01:54, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
As already said, simply suggesting a solution which will seem to remedy a problem of driving people off. I didn't think it would get taken seriously, but better to try than watch it continue and do nothing ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 15:17, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
There's another problem with removing votes, some may rate down a build because of minor issues, but it may not impact the overall performance all that much. This is frequent in Team builds, because you can not look at every member individually, but the team as a whole. I've noticed it a lot in Team builds; reasoning may be valid, but they could be missing the whole picture, or what the build is good at. It's like rating down a Monk build and saying: "lol, how do you kill anything?" Another thing I've seen, is that many users rate down builds based on issues that are easily fixed, which they could either do themselves or propose on the talk page. A build that's in Testing isn't necessarily finished, but the author might just have wanted more publicity.
I'm sure half of the senseless votes could be avoided if we included Featured Trial Builds on the Main Page, because unfinished builds (as in not the final product) see little help from others, and it's usually left to the author to do everything on their own. ــмıкεнaшк 17:34, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

GvG Update

Start the archiving. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Uh...why? It's the exact same as before but splitting is actually viable. --Tab MooTab Piplup 17:21, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
gg, take 3 invincimonks, put them at stand, get rest of your team to directly split to GL, win, it's been proven by my guild; it works against horrible enemies. Brandnew. 17:23, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
lolpve. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 17:27, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
(EC)That would only work against total idiots... Send the monks back, and they'd gank your front probably... ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   17:28, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
We were r3000 back then. Brandnew. 17:29, 14 August 2008 (EDT)


Should be resolving issues on the wiki, not going around deleting "graceperiodexpireds". Just a suggesstion (probably a bad one) but what about assigning a member of the wiki janitorial powers for a week, then giving the powers to another member? These people can delete builds, revert spam, etc. Seems like a lot of trouble but admins arent clean-up people strictly, they should be resolving bigger issues. I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contest! 22:42, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

As long as it isn't someone that will vandalize the wiki and delete a bunch of good builds. XD ــмıкεнaшк 22:52, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Then again, I probably wouldn't want the job of deleting trash builds, and nothing else. =/ ــмıкεнaшк 22:53, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
It's good as it is, tbh. Assigning random people is often a terrible idea too. şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 22:54, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
They definitely wouldn't be chosen at random, because it could result in abuse, but I still doubt that very many would enjoy mindless build deletion. XD ــмıкεнaшк 23:01, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
No, not random, just build masters or trusted long-term members of the wiki who arent bms, admins, etc. I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contest! 23:15, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
why? ther's no point, there's nothing on the wiki that big an issue that requires us to do what your suggesting. BM's can remove votes an the AN and any they find while browsing, and are doing a good job at that, they might not say so on the AN but most of the issues will be resolved. There aren't really any major issues that require admin intervention anyway, provide an example please =). ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 08:06, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd say the admin team does a pretty good job already. There's no particular issues I've noticed that don't get resolved. --Tab MooTab Piplup 08:10, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point was to give Admins a break from build deletion and all that mindless stuff they need to do, so they can focus on more important issues. I don't really think it's necessary, however, because we have quite a few admins to do those jobs. ــмıкεнaшк 10:07, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
because the whole 18 builds will be a pain in the arse -.- ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 10:25, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
You should see it when it gets large. 200+ builds and their talk pages. Zzz... — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
That's why DE made Wizardboy tbh. --Tab MooTab Piplup 17:35, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
And my point is that going to a special page and deleting the stuff on it once every week in no way is distracting them from their other duties. We have a sufficiently large and competant admin team to do both. --Tab MooTab Piplup 10:27, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

16.08.08 - Downtime

Sorry about downtime today. PvXwiki has been offline for like 4 hours... Admins got noticed right away but server was dead and we were unable to get it back online. Had to contact support guys from to look into the problem. After a few hours of searching and a new RAID controller we are back online.

So far it looks like all data is safe and nothing were lost.

Until this downtime server had almost 100 days of uptime. Lets hope for another 100 days :) gcardinal 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

I thought I was banned lol ــмıкεнaшк 17:31, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
I have to say you guys are pretty good about getting right on the problem - and thanks...when I get bored (basically when the girls take naps), I have nowhere else to go lol. ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 20:46, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
^ Someone's got a pretty active life. =P ــмıкεнaшк 20:47, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
lol I do when they're awake...they run me ragged ;-) ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 20:50, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
I almost commit suicide... ah the boredom. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 06:41, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Rewrite template

Dont Quill This build might need to be rewritten due to meta shift or being outdated.

The idea would be to slap the tag on builds fallen out of meta or outdated instead of archiving them. This way we could retain most builds and less builds would be archived. The tag should be used when the build is still used, but in another form. Of course, if some builds cannot be rewritten because of a nerf, those should be left alone. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 12:49, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Agree. Such as changes in the functionality, but still viable... Soul Bind for example. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   13:46, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
I kind of like that template. -Auron 01:56, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Done. {{rewrite}} ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 06:08, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Isn't {{Build update}} or {{Proposed build change}} used for that purpose? Though that template looks awesome. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, I've never seen {{proposed build change}} used, and that needs a subpage with the changes which is tiresome. {{Build update}} is not referring to meta shift but rather game updates. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 13:32, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
The only occasion that I've used it in was on the Cruel Spear Paragon page. Though the subpage with the changes would probably be the talk page. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 13:54, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

2 questions

  1. Where does Innovation count towards the effectiveness of the build? If it doesnt, why have it anyway?
  2. Is this new innovation checkbox asking the "Is it meta?" question or the "Is it original?" question?

I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contest! 18:23, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

  1. Innovation no long counts towards the effectivness of the build because it has no effect on how effective it is tbh (you can split hairs and say they've never seen it or w/e but that's jsut being nit picky). We keep it because we still want to encourage innovation and show that builds can be innovative.
  2. it means is it innovative, is it original not the confusing real vetting explanation we had before. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 18:28, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
PvX doesnt really come up with really original ideas, tbh, they just bitch around obs mode and put down what is seen. Of course, it could be argued that the players have innovative ideas but if it becomes popular it is more suitable to use the meta description as opposed to the originality description. I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contest! 19:33, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
But it works just fine for PvE builds.User Ereanor sigreanor 01:24, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
No, it's just none of the innovative builds get rated well because they aren't meta yet, usually, otherwise we have pretty much have all the most the effective builds anyways, there isn't much squiggle room between a couple WELLs. And Frosty is the only one that's really been bitching around in obs mode with all the Other/Good/Great builds he has.--Relyk IkeR e l y k 01:26, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Disallow "fake" usernames?

I want to disallow fake usernames - i.e., the name at the top of a page isn't their actual username. For example, User:Wubliest. Oh, wait. That user doesn't exist. Hm.
Userpages exist primarily for people to get in touch with you. If you, in the course of prettifying your page, compromise this primary goal of the concept of userspace, you are doing it wrong. User pages are still free to list whatever information that user wants, but absolutely no purpose is served by adding unneeded code to hide your username. If you want people to call you by a certain name (Wubliest instead of Godliest), tell them so, or make another account. Don't put code on your page to intentionally confuse people.
It was a huge problem a month or two back, when every other userpage I'd load had something different put up. And the same user would have it say something different every other day. It was pretty bad then, but it still exists now, so IMO something needs to be done. Comments? -Auron 00:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Meh, you can always see their sig and rollover it to see that it links to Godliest, not Wubliest. It seems like nubs who arent familiar with the users around here will have problems (i for example did not know that tab and ibreaktoilets were the same person when i started). But its all their problem, not that hard to rollover their sig. I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contest! 00:37, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I agree with Auron, having opposed it back on GuildWiki. --Shadowcrest 00:40, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't have a problem with them, it's really not that much trouble to see if the URL matches the page title, but if you feel it's necessary, then go ahead. --71.229 01:02, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Please see User talk:Droks or User:Mgrinshpon/Epic lol--Relyk IkeR e l y k 04:37, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
You could make it even more fun: Have it change everytime the page is loaded. Other than that: agreed. It may not be hard to rollover a sig, but it shouldn't be mandatory. --Many srs beans Srs Beans R Srs 05:51, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Your argument about the name showing in the URL bar is quite valid. It's a little more work than I'd like (I prefer to use inner-wiki links and not URL wiki links, and people displaying fake usernames make that impossible), but it's not the end of the world. Since that name at the top serves no other real purpose, I don't see a point in forging a policy to abate its abuse. -Auron 07:51, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

related sig discussion

At first I was 100% with Auron but now I'm not so sure (I think I was agreeing at first because it looks sloppy and a bit immature). If you're already at their user page, you know where you're at (that is if their sig is correct). Once I started trying to think objectively, I couldn't come up with any downsides or causes for confusion. Maybe I'm not trying hard enough though...? ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 15:08, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
There are multiple sigs that give no indication (or minimal) of who the user is.

--Shadowcrest 18:06, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe I'll make my sig just a picture of the upside-down thumb. Though, I get the feeling that anyone would still know it's me. Or be able to figure it out once they went to my user page. Also, should anons with variable IPs be banned then? Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 18:13, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
"Your signature should clearly identify the user, and not be disruptive to the talk pages." from PvXwiki:Sign_your_comments would mean that a quarter of the users Shadowcrest mentions would have to change their signatures (and even the font for Shadowcrest is barely legible XD) I've never found identifying users by their signatures a problem, tbh, and in all, I don't think it really matters. If admins want to enforce the signing policy, they could leave messages on those users talk pages, but I'm sure no one really cares that much. =/ ــмıкεнaшк 18:24, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
It's just your computer. Most people see that as a Z. If you really believe most people can't see, I'm willing to change to ᶎ, ʐ or ⱬ (name the visible ones to you). For a picture of how my signature is supposed to be like, check here. Most of them are (very) readable, like shadowsin for one. Maybe you just need some glasses? Also, if you have checked Crow's page, you might've noticed several warnings that his signature needs to be a referral to your name. There just hasn't been taken any action about it yet. şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 18:25, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh man, how little of a brain must you have not to be able to understand my signature. Seriously. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 18:27, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

He's probably just pissed off because of the whole drama around his signature. şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 18:28, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I missed that. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 18:29, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
How the fuck can you justify shadowsin's sig needing changing when yours is 10 times worse and absolutely miniscule? O_O -- 19px The proceeding Cute McPiplup was added by Rawr. 18:30, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
size of sig is directly proportional to size of brain --Tab MooTab Piplup 18:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Miniscule? ... To me it's just a regular lightblue signature. Or was this all before afformentioned drama? ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 18:43, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
He uses some font not everyone standard has. It also happens to be a srsly small font. To make up for that he used big tags which aren't allowed (would break line spacing if you didn't have the font installed), but he seems to have removed that now. So either you have the font installed and it's hardly readable or you don't have it and it looks normal/used to break spacing. şąɀɀƴƿooɧPinkNautical 18:46, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm gonna make my sig font white so I can be cool. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 19:10, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
(Reset indent) Personal attacks and other insults directed at my intelligence aside, my point still stands and- more importantly- so does Auron's, which people have ignored to troll me. As for "[that] would mean that a quarter of the users Shadowcrest mentions would have to change their signatures"- if I could quote wording on PvX:SIGN and actually have it enforced, I could probably get 80% of users here to change their signatures. To Saz: if it's just my computer, then your sig does cleary point out who you are, and I've crossed out the line about your sig not identifying who you are. (Though I would like to point out you used the same argument you just used to defend yourself against me yesterday, though if you're going to respond to this please do it on my talk page; the community portal doesn't need Shadowcrest flaming all over it.) Ricky- I never said I couldn't understand your sig. Even if for some reason I wasn't able to at first (I was), I would have already seen it and thus recognized who it is. Please do not assume I'm an ignorant moron without the ability to read upside-down and backwards, as I am quite capable of doing so. All I am saying is that it would be far easier to read if it were rightside up and read left to right. "Also, should anons with variable IPs be banned then?" Of course not. Their sig is easily readable and does in some way tell definitively who they are. If there are any other comments that do not include personal attack, I will be happy to field them to the best of my ability. --Shadowcrest sig image 19:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
You're seriously nitpicking about this whole signature thing. I do agree that people with an entirely different name in their signature than their account name should change it accordingly, but signatures that are "hard to read" shouldn't be any problem. A signature is basically meant for people to know who left a comment somewhere, so the next time they see that signature they recognize it as the same person, so people can actually have conversations. The only time it's ncessary to be able to read a signature is when somebody has changed his/her signature, so it's easy to identify that certain person. I, for one, never had any problem with Tab's account actually being "Ibreaktoilets" simply because when somebody signs his comment with "Tab(insertrandombluewaterpokemonhere)" I know who it is. When you're finding it dificult to read a sig, or you're not sure what it actually says (which might also happen to people reading your sig for the first time) just hoover your mouse over the signature, look at the botom of your browser and read. It's not hard, really. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 20:17, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I respectfully disagree. Policies are instituted for a reason: if they were meant to be ignored, they wouldn't have been implemented. You don't put in rules to see how many people can break them. There are exceptions, of course, but I would be willing to argue this isn't one of them. If everyone were free to ignore policies as they wished, people would be left to govern themselves. And with no policies, admins wouldn't be able to back their blocks with anything, and I guarentee you someone would QQ about their block being unfair and it would probably snowball. Do you know what would happen if the community was left to themselves? While it would be rather amusing for a short time, seeing every pokemon listed in every possible format on every page would get very old, very fast :/
Also, any drama that occured yesterday involving my signature is completely irrelevant to my current arguments. If I am "seriously nitpicking about this whole signature thing," please understand that is not because it's related to signatures and not that I am somehow bitter towards PvX:SIGN now, it's the principle involved.
If I do nitpick about policies, it's because of the reasons in the section above. PvX:SIGN says that "Signature must show their user name or by other means make clear the user name." If I can't even read your signature then why should I be expected to know your username or who you are? For "A signature is basically meant for people to know who left a comment somewhere, so the next time they see that signature they recognize it as the same person, so people can actually have conversations," imagine if everyone you talk to was assigned a color, and they had to sign with a 50x19 solid block of their color. Would you be able to remember who everyone is? I wouldn't :/. As for not minding whether Ibreaktoilet's sig is Tab McPiplup or whatever, I understand your argument (I do it all the time), but new users wouldn't have a clue that Tab McPiplup actually means User:Ibreaktoilets. Finally, "When you're finding it dificult to read a sig [...] just hoover your mouse over the signature [...] It's not hard, really." While I can't come up with any logical reasons why this shouldn't be allowed, the best thing I have to argue with is "It may not be hard to rollover a sig, but it shouldn't be mandatory." --Shadowcrest sig image 21:24, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
You don't have to remember every single user that leaves a comment. There are only a handful of people that are really worth remembering. All the others can change their Sig to whatever they like. If they're worth my memory I should know their names by then ;) ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 21:50, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
a) Add Shadowcrest's new sig to the list. b) Walls of text are baed. Do not do plz. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 22:14, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
(EC)If everyone's signature made it clear who they were it wouldn't matter how many users worth remembering there are :/
But even if there weren't a limited number of people whose names you consider worth remembering, it's still not fair to ask people to remember that Tab=Ibreaktoilets, Crow=PhatNThat, etc. etc. It's like someone creating a cypher for all the letters in the English alphabet and asking the whole PvX community (including new members who have no idea what's going on) to remember and be able to coherently use both English and Bilgherd :/
If I have to use a walloftext to defend a point, I'm going to. My record is +9261; if I have to break it, I will. --Shadowcrest sig image 22:39, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I prove points better, tbh. Cedave bad ツ terribad mcfail (contributionsbuildpage) 22:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

PvX drama about random pointless shit is fucking hilarious.--GoldenGoldenstarStar 22:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't see why people don't just stick to using their standard username in the first place. Seems a lot more logical to me. Unless you have more than one personality (ie. like Tab), I don't see why people don't just keep with their regular name. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:50, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

But making drama over people's sig because they're "harder to read" is just...stupid. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 22:57, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
lets all just make 15 new users every time we want to make our name more recognisable or make an inside joke. tbh i cant read your sig shadowcrest. and what if im jewish and ricky's sig is only upside and not backwords? Effinsig1Effin McPiplup 22:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)


^ winner Effinsig1Effin McPiplup 23:02, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Image in your sig is too big, tbh. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 23:03, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Fail less, it isn't. –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 23:04, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
i think its mineEffinsig1Effin McPiplup 23:05, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Notice a joke when you see one, tbh. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 23:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I can feel the humor radiating from this section. –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 23:08, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
was gonna say, we'd need shadowcrests sig to start to measure 1px at a time.Effinsig1Effin McPiplup 23:08, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
.... I can read all of those sigs just fine. The only one you actually have a valid point on, is Tab's , but even that is nitpicking. If you cant read them stop using IE tyvm. and Sazzy the only z you put up there that I can read is the one in the middle, the other 2 are ?.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 07:29, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
PS. I had to hover over your name to find out whoru cuz yours is so damn small and in fancy illegible writing.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 07:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Auron. The point of having page titles is that you don't need to check the URL to know what you're looking at. Similarily, the point of signatures is to make clear who wrote what, you shouldn't need additional browser functions for that. That said, looking at the discussion I'm not sure if implementing/enforcing policies to that end is worth the effort. On a related note: we have 4605 pages (862 MB) in the Build namespace (incl. talk). We have 15534 pages (2051 MB) in User space. That makes you wonder if this is a place to discuss builds or rather a playground / web hosting service / trolling forum. But again, I don't see much we can do about that. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 07:39, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Shadowcrest here - for a few reasons, but mostly because everyone's attitude in response was simply dispicable. Instead of trying to refute his logic with logic, you resort immediately to personal attacks and mob tactics. Then you act like it's okay to be a total douche, and that violating policy is fine. Seriously, what the hell?

  • "Maybe you just need some glasses?"
Maybe you should make a signature that's readable? It sucks. I've downloaded about sixty language packs and most of those "z"s you've posted still appear as question marks.
  • "how little of a brain must you have not to be able to understand my signature"
Yes, I love having to turn my head upside down to read it. Thanks for insulting my intelligence because I'm not predisposed to getting neck cramps.
  • "He's probably just pissed off because of the whole drama around his signature"
That's nice. Does it invalidate his argument somehow? Stop it with the fallacies already, jesus.
  • "How the fuck can you justify shadowsin's sig needing changing when yours is 10 times worse and absolutely miniscule?"
More logical fallacy. His signature has nothing to do with shadowsin's signature. An ugly person can still call someone ugly - most of you would counter with something retarded like "look who's talking LOL C WUT I DID THAR IM SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUNNY," but you'd be dead wrong to do so.
I like you alot Ichigo, but read the fucking OP's comments. If he didn't care, he wouldn't have started it.

Anyway, because of the douchebaggery and lack of actual arguments shown, I'm going to have to agree with Shadowcrest's valid argument that nobody bothered to refute. People need to use immediately recognizable signatures. Remember, the intent of the signature isn't to show off - it's to let others identify you without trouble. If they have to turn their head upside down, install 60+ language packs, learn greek, or pull out a magnifying glass, it causes trouble. Also, while we're at it, cut it out with the fake unsigned messages line. You don't need it, and (for the same reason I jump on people for having the "new messages" thing on their userpage) replicating usually valid system messages needlessly confuses people.

Shadowcrest; I'll hit those users you've already posted. If you (or anyone) finds more people with signatures that are more difficult to read than plain english, leave a tell on my talk and I'll get it sorted out. -Auron 07:51, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I haven't installed a single language pack tbh -.- I also immediately offered to change it, I don't see what's the problem. How much my signature "sucks" is hardly the point. şąʐʐƴƿooɧPinkNautical 08:00, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
I havnt downloaded any either, and I checked IE my signature shows up fine on both.
As for no more fake userpage names, I agree its really ridiculous, if you wanted a different name then why did you choose the one you had?----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 09:04, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Argument: As far as having a different name on your signature, that should be disallowed as it is already a stipulation of PVX:SIGN. As far as signatures with different fonts go, The only user that is unrecognizable to me is Choyt <-Probably misspelled because I cant read it. I think users should only be required to change their signature if someone screen shots it with a ? that they viewed while trying to read whos it was. Such as Sazzy's was before about 5 minutes ago.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 09:18, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

HB monk

Move one to HA or GvG prefix?--Relyk IkeR e l y k 05:13, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't see an issue. The /Me on a Healer's Boon bar obviously denotes HA usage already. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 15:10, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Not to mention that the bars are pretty damn different--GoldenGoldenstarStar 22:43, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
^ I find no reason why they should be merged considering the differences in skills and areas. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 08:08, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.