can you look at the voting page for Build:W/D Endurance Attack Spammer, one voter doesnt understad the scythe attacks are for the fast activation, and the other is a... er.. questionable contributor ;). thx The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090 (contribs). 01:18, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

Removed the vandal's vote. As to the user who doesn't understand... I'm not gonna be here tomorrow, but, give him a chance to edit his vote, and then, if he still doesn't understand, contact another Admin. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:21, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
thanks you. ^_^ The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090 (contribs). 01:22, 5 August 2007 (CEST)


Didn't we come to a concensus, that our Sig Policies were to be less stict then that of Guild Wikis? Just wanting to clarify, and response would be appreciated =). Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 00:33, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

Yeah, which is why I didn't comment about the <sub> tags for instance. I'm primarily concerned about flow (which is why I pretty much limited my comments to the size of his signature, not the signature itself). Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:35, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
On another note though, we should probably come out with our own less stringent version. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:36, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
I perfectly understand about limits lol. For example, one person changed all their lettering orange and italicized... Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 00:48, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

PvXwiki:Evaluating Administrators

I see nothing to complain about. Might be time for an archive, though. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 07:55, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

Time to archive?

WARNING: This page is 71 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.

You might need to break this up into multiple archives, actually, hehe. That's kinda big.

And a quick postscript; are there any rules for voting on the five finalists in your contest? Such as "no voting on your own submission", etcetera... you don't seem to have any rules listed on the voting page. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 01:58, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

The only rule is really that you can't vote on your own submission (at least, I can't think of any other necessary rules)... but, I did add a note about that on both contest talk pages. As to the archive... I don't think it's really that hard to navigate if you just use the TOC and RCs, so, until I see a real reason to archive, I don't think it's a major problem. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:10, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
I see a reason: It shouldn't take that long to scroll up to the "my watchlist" button. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 05:11, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
Fine, I'll add a prerequisite to my last comment, it has to be a good reason. Besides, the editing problems don't apply if you edit by section, so, since that would be the only good reason, until it takes me too long to scroll through the TOC, I think I'll be fine.
Also, I added one other stipulation to the contest voting: you only get one vote. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:14, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
I agree entirely. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:14, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
*somehow manages to archive Readem's talk while restarting, shortening TOC to less than three scrolls on 1200x800 resolution* -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 05:17, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

User talk:Champion

I've taken care of it =P The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 05:54, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

I already saw that. I was simply responded to each of his comments so that someone else doesn't see them and start messing with the templates. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:56, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
you're always 2 steps ahead of me DE. The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 05:57, 16 August 2007 (CEST)


I've got to get to bed for another early wake-up soon, but I'd like to have a short chat maybe tomorrow evening, preferably before you promote anyone to Sysop. Would that be alright? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:01, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

That's fine with me. I'm usually on from around 6pm-7:30pm EST and 11pm-1am EST. Tomorrow I'll also be free during parts of the early afternoon, so it shouldn't be hard to get in touch with me. As to promoting anyone to Sysop, I have no plans on doing that before I get a chance to talk to as much of the Administrative staff as I can, so no need to worry about that. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:04, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

Skill Contest

Are we also going to have judging on the You be ANet Buff/Nerf things, or is that judged just by you? PaintballerSig The Paintballer (T/C) 21:19, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

Given the low number of submissions, I don't think it's gonna be judged period. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:23, 16 August 2007 (CEST)


+ talk to me at for today on msn. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 23:59, 16 August 2007 (CEST)


Hey Defiant for the spam with saving, my internet connection wasnt moving, so I thought it wasnt saving, sorry about that.


What exactly does it mean, when I check a user, and no results come up? What should I do? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 10:57, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

Usually it means that the user either doesn't exist/is misspelled (i.e. it can't find the user), or, it means that the user has no contributions (which are required for Check User to function). Alternatively, you could have just put it in the wrong box (i.e. IP vs. User), but, aside from that, it should always return a result. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 11:02, 18 August 2007 (CEST)
What counts as a contribution? This guys has 2 "edits", and yet he is not found. I am sure I spelt it correctly as well... Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 11:06, 18 August 2007 (CEST)
It seems like the checkuser extension was only recording IP numbers for edits made from 11th to 18th of July. This is a bug. I'll see if I can start the recording again, but it might be we have to wait until Gcardinal is back. In any case, edits made before checkuser was installed or while it was bugged will not be accessible. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 12:38, 18 August 2007 (CEST)
Fixed. I upgraded the checkuser extension. It seems it's now successfully maintaining it's own list of recent changes. Edits made from now on will be added to that list and be accessible via Special:CheckUser. Note that for performance reasons, edits older than 3 months will be removed from the list. Note also that with our current MediaWiki version the XFF functionality of the extension is not supported. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 13:34, 19 August 2007 (CEST)

Skill Quick Reference Template

Hey Defiant, new user here. I have a question. Can i use the skill quick reference template you have at the bottom of your page? I don't know if it's yours or a direct copy from the wiki, so I'm defaulting to asking you before I rudely rip it off your page. Reply here or on my talk page, whichever you prefer, if you don't I'll just assume that that's a no. Thanks in advance. Seraphfamily 08:30, 19 August 2007 (CEST)


Hey, how come my signature won't work here but the exact same thing works on GWW? See here.--Eloc

try it in preferences under nickname and check off use raw signature. — Skakid9090 09:12, 19 August 2007 (CEST)

Possible Build Re-vote

I just finished overhauling build:A/any Critical Fox, and made some changes to the skillbar and general setup. Could you do me a favor and take a look at it? If at all possible, I think a re-vote might be needed; the changes are pretty big to the skillbar, and for the better, in my opinion. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 02:22, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

FYI, Readem just took care of it. If you could drop by the page and comment on anything, that would be great... not sure if 'Sin builds are your expertise or anything, but if you can think of any suggestions, I could use them. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 02:41, 20 August 2007 (CEST)


Cant get on XBox. Have to be an adult account to use it, and my dad is the parent, soo... and is it okay to protect my sig page? Dont need to, but sounds admin-like... lol. --User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 01:20, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

That's fine. And no, you probably shouldn't protect your sig page :P. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:26, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

Your Signature

Takes up more than 2 lines while editing a page. I know we had a policy on guild wiki, but im not sure if theres one here. either way its quite annoying. I would suggest putting the linux penguin and your name in an image and/or get rid of the talk page link. ms paint ftw.--Coloneh 07:59, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

To be fair, the GuildWiki policy to which you refer (which we have in fact adopted) specifies that Signatures longer than 3 lines are too long. However, if you find it annoying, I'll take it under consideration. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:01, 21 August 2007 (CEST)
DE's sig is only 1.5 lines for me. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 05:14, 22 August 2007 (CEST)


Defiant Elements Sig+talk

Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk

Well... it's past 2 AM where I am, so I'm going to bed. But, if I can get over my laziness, I'll see about changing my signature tomorrow. I'll see about re-sizing/cleaning up the image as well. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:10, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

Protip: Paint sucks. Use Photoshop, and under File, go to save for web. No pixelated crap. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 17:43, 21 August 2007 (CEST)
Yep, and using that method, you can normally set the quality to around 50-60, without any noticeable image pixelation. Even lower sometimes, depending on the image size and detail level. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 05:11, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

pve professions

remove these votes please, since according to the talk page of the unfavored policy votes like that arent allowed since the usage isn't completely gimped by the profession change. — Skakid9090 06:07, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

Which talk page of which policy? Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:08, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
PvXwiki talk:PvE Profession BiasSkakid9090 06:10, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Ah. Well, looks like Readem did it for me. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:13, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

k np!!

i just joined a month or 2 ago, and i like the site a lot!! its really fun!! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guildwarsfan52094 (contribs) .


K. Thanks for the tip. --Guildwarsfan52094 20:02, 22 August 2007 (CEST)


would you revert Build:Rt/any Spirit's Strength Ritualist back? the person that edited it made it rediculously bulky and ugly to the eyes... and i dont have any clue how to revert it :\ Alpha fireborn 20:06, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

Done. –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 20:12, 22 August 2007 (CEST)


thanks for making them move for me, i'm a relative wiki noob Th3pr0s3cut0r 21:12, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

Not a problem. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:29, 22 August 2007 (CEST)


I'll try for MSN tonight. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 22:09, 22 August 2007 (CEST)


WARNING: This page is 86 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 22:31, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

Main page

Please keep current style and formating of the main page. New design for the whole site are just around the corner. Rollback effected all your edits, I am sorry for that. gcardinal 08:46, 24 August 2007 (CEST)

Works for me. I just thought the Main Page needed a "face-lift" so to speak, and I wasn't aware you were planning a new design. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:47, 24 August 2007 (CEST)

Past Featured Builds

Mind if I put the Other Working Builds tag on it? O.o ----Teh Uber Pwnzer 21:29, 26 August 2007 (CEST)

No. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 21:31, 26 August 2007 (CEST)


I am having problem creating my own. Would you care to take a look? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 00:54, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

User:Readem/Template:BotW. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 00:55, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

Ok, so here's the problem. First, you were operating based on "CURRENTDAY" rather than "CURRENTWEEK." So, I changed that. Second problem. "CURRENTWEEK" operates based on the week of the year, not of the month. So, today for example, {{CURRENTWEEK}} will return a variable answer of 35. Thus, the string attached to 35 will be shown, and you only had it up to 5. Finally, your font isn't showing up, but that's just because you need to change the color :). Hope that helps. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:03, 27 August 2007 (CEST)
Cool. Damn...35 builds...color...noooo! Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 01:03, 27 August 2007 (CEST)
Well... you could just start at 35 since that's where we are now. You don't need a string input for each variable. Or, you could base it on CURRENTDAY, and just list each one 7 times so that variables 1-7 were one build, 8-15 were another, etc. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:05, 27 August 2007 (CEST)
I had the same problem with my Brain Teaser of the week. I had extra time one day, so I just put in 52 different ones. Bluemilkman 02:38, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

New sysops

Are they checkuser? (Is that automatic?) -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 17:57, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

We are. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 23:15, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

General Barrager

gotcha :) didnt c it. that would seem like a completely differnt build tho but i guess not.ViM Mizzouman 20:16, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

Build:A/any Beguiling Shocker

What happened to my build? Or can you at least tell me why it was deleted??--Victory is Mine! Victoryisyours 18:55, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Build:A/Mo Beguiling Shocker. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 18:57, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Checking users

I can't seem to check the following users: User:Rcknpp, User:Ccssneo, and several others. I believe they are socks rating highly on Edspecial911's or some other dude's builds. I have probable cause, but no hard evidence if you will. I can't prove they're socks. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 00:49, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Users need to have contributions for us to check their IP. Since neither of those users do, we can't prove it one way or the other unfortunately. We may, in the future, change Real Vetting so that users need contributions > 0 to vote, but until then, we'll just have to try and scrutinize the votes that we suspect are made by sockpuppets. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:51, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
That would be a worthy change. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 00:52, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Checking admins

What's the deal with the new admin, frvwfr2, telling people to change their votes, and then deleteting them if they are not changed? Have you guys made somebody a sysop without checking him out first?Zog 01:41, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Can you show me where? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 01:47, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
Oh, ok, I see where. The reason he said that was because your vote was wrong. It is very easy to get into an FFF group. Furthermore, FFFing becomes only increasingly easier as you enter FFF guilds which are extremely fast at it. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 01:49, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
You need to checkout his talk page and look at all the people's votes hes changed and are complaining...and hes only just come on board. Also, I had a lot of trouble getting in fff groups it took *me* forever and sometimes I could never get in a group at all. I still stand by my vote and comments.Zog 01:53, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
1st off, he can't change votes, he can remove them. Secondly, I only see 3 people who complained. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 02:02, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
He only just got here...3 is a lot in only a few days.
He's been here for some time now... - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 02:52, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
Ya, we don't promote people up to sysop suddenly uppon arrival. Check his archives for earlier talk pages. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 02:54, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
He was only recently made a sysop was my point...I just don't want my vote deleted because someone doesn't like it. A lower vote is not necessarily invalid.
Why am I now geting flaming posts with profanity on my User Talk Page from Skakid9090 just because he didn't like the way I voted? I think that some people there are being overly sensitive about relevant issues I raised in my vote. It doesn't make sense to allow people to vote then remove the votes you don't like. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zog (contribs) .
See my response on your talk page. It's not about a vote we don't like, heck, Skakid doesn't even have the power to remove a vote, it's about the fact that your comment, as per Real Vetting, warrants removal, and, you're breaking policy both by spamming your vote, and by breaking 1RV. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:56, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

frvwfr has every right to remove votes, that's the main job for admins imo — Skakid9090 07:03, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Well... Administrators have every right to remove a vote within reason. Admin abuse, particularly of the power to remove votes, is something we've worried about in the past. However, unless someone actually deviates significantly from reasonable bounds in removing a vote, then yes, they do have every right to do so. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:06, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
You should never remove a vote. A voting system provides a method of detemining builds that are falling by the wayside, or those that stand the test of time. If vindictive individuals are spiking the system, then you need to fix the voting system. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zog (contribs) .
Sign your comments. And if you were given a running build, and you claimed it did nothing near the amount of damage as an SP sin spike, it would be an irrelivant vote which should be removed. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 07:12, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
We have very defined reasons for removing votes which can be found on the Real Vetting page. While I agree that generally, most votes should be left alone, it seems pretty clear that votes constituting vandalism or sockpuppetry, those that are obviously biased, those that simply make no sense, etc., should be removed. I fail to see the problem with that. Also, what do you mean by "fix the system"... Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:17, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

The Bloody Fox 02:32, 4 October 2007 (CEST) I have a slight concern regarding the build I recently submitted "Holy Dwayna", the Admin Defiant Elements was quick to trash it and even rate it poorly without giving any merit to it's strong suits. And I am further led to believe he never even attempted to test the build before duscussing with such malice. This build has never had synergy issues in the test runs for me. Myself and the others who have tried it have never complained of lack of synergy, poor self heals, and lack of res signet(there is an optional slot for a reason) and I would like to see my concerns addressed. If there is any validity to my claim, this would look VERY poor on the part of the administration of the site.

First of all, may I ask why you're addressing me in the third person on my own talk page? The second person might have been more appropriate. Second of all, testing a build is not required, ask anyone, they'll tell you the same. Additionally, I believe that I provided quite a bit of evidence. Lyssa's Assault is a low damage attack that yields a negligible amount of energy, holy damage is worthwhile in only a very very limited portion of PvE, and even against Undead, the slot could be put to better use. Besides which, builds don't have "synergy issues in testing," what I meant was the skills don't appear to have any purpose in furthering each other. It's just a random compilation of skills. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:05, 4 October 2007 (CEST)
I'm with DE on this one. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 04:10, 4 October 2007 (CEST)
Same. And your build doesn't even use all of its attribute points o_O --Wizardboy777 SigWizardboy777(T/C) 04:21, 4 October 2007 (CEST)
I still can't get over the fact that he's complaining about me.... to me.... but addressing me in the third person... Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:24, 4 October 2007 (CEST)
And I fail to see how you were 'duscussing with such malice'. That looks pretty much like an objective list of facts to me. --Wizardboy777 SigWizardboy777(T/C) 04:30, 4 October 2007 (CEST)
I can only infer that 1) He thought this was a page either to discuss me or a general discussion page of some kind, and 2) This is another instance of an overprotective author who views my dislike of the build as a personal affront of some kind. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:32, 4 October 2007 (CEST)
Oh, and I believe I can answer his question as to whether there is "any validity to this claim." I think it's pretty safe to say that there is not since, if I understand it correctly, he is accusing me of not testing the build, which I am not required to do in the first place. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:36, 4 October 2007 (CEST)


Well of course the system is designed for all the admin to get Great votes and everyone else get failed. How else do you think I would get all my Great builds all to that status...all 0 of them. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 07:59, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Archive btw. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 07:59, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
lol. It's funny really. I've had a number of favored builds in the course of my GuildWiki/PvXwiki career... and at most, maybe 1 or 2 are anything remotely akin to cookie-cutters (I <3 ridiculous gimmicks). And, in general, the reason it might seem that Admin builds do well is simply because the Administrators (who are generally pretty experienced players) are posting well-known builds. Look at the builds Readem has posted for example. Of course meta builds are gonna get vetted and Echo Menders will not. What bothers me is that people seem to think that that fact implies that the system is biased. It's like saying "Oh noes, the vetting system is biased against bad builds, so it obviously fails/is a fascist sham." Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:04, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
It's fun to watch sometimes. I do remember how they feel though. You've been pretty much pwning n00bs for the last month with the build and finally decide to post a build. First build you put up gets rotflmao'd to death, and you feel like it's designed against you. After a while, you start to realize people vote weird. Serioulsy, have how often do you see 3s? People are either OMFG WIN4BUILD 5-5-5, WTF BUILD4TL 0-0-0, or UM,NO.WORKS,NotEXCELLENTTHO 2-1-2. : / Maybe its just me. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 08:10, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
You're better than me at this kind of stuff: What is the average life of all characters, casters, and monks? ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 08:12, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
Pffft, my builds don't even get looked at, much less voted down! Regardless, I never really viewed the system as some sort of bizarre internet backpatting session where everyone tells me what a genius I am for thinking of X build. All I really want to do is post builds that I've found to be fun and reasonably effective; if they get voted good, great. If not, there's always the user page. - Vermain 08:46, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
Ah, I've personally given up on posting builds; I refuse to play cookie-cutter builds, so my submissions are normally "bad" in some way or another (no matter how well I can make them work). I stick to contests, and yes, userspace. Hmm, I'll probably start working on more userspace builds, now that I think of it. :D
I'm just waiting for my current vetted build to either even out, or get trashed. Then I can stop worrying about it... the way it is now, it's only making me get ticked off at people. (you would get ticked off too, if everyone gave 1-1-1 votes on a build you use to clear areas solo with.) --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 09:09, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.