Quick Question(s)

Do you believe that the state will remain the primary actor on the stage of world politics into the 21st century? Is its sovereignty being undermined by other inter-state organizations, such as multinational corporations and intergovernmental organizations like the UN and the EU? Do you subscribe to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory? Just wondering. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:51, 5 December 2007 (CET)

Civilization VI tells me yes no yes, Starfish tells me no yes yes. I tell myself maybe yes yes. CoC only applies at the current level of population, though, and something tells me it's gonna drop pretty drastically in the next century or so. -- 07:59, 5 December 2007 (CET) lol answering questions that weren't directed at me
Interesting. I believe the global population will rise, much like the sharp rise in population after the discovery and availability of penicillin and antibiotic drugs around the end of WWII, this time due in part to advances in health technology such as stem cell research. People will be living longer, and will remain fertile for longer in proportion to their lifespan. I don't foresee us ending world poverty until it becomes advantageous to us as well, and since poor people typically have higher birth rates, the population ought to continue growing. Of course, there will always be the chance of nuclear war or undiscovered biological menaces and whatnot, but the UN agrees that world population will continue to climb. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:08, 5 December 2007 (CET)
I'm not so sure a nuclear war is very possible, other than the fact that we have them, its more of a deterrent than anything else, any intelligent nation knows that the onset of nuclear war, aside from a bomb going off in their respective country, would have drastic repercussions on themselves as far as an economical and environmental standpoint. As for the population, it will continue to rise simply due to the ongoing research in medicine and the mass amounts of medical discoveries and procedures. Medicine>Us. XD.--Shadowsin 08:13, 5 December 2007 (CET)
Nuclear war is very possible. Humankind has the ability to eradicate itself and everything on the planet hundreds of times over because of nuclear weapons. A nuclear terrorist attack/campaign is a remote possibility, because when a non-state actor initiates a military action such as that, they are not considering the economical and environmental consequences. They are concerning themselves only with expelling foreign influence, advancing a religious war, obtaining national self-determination, etc etc, achieving their own private goals. As long as none of these bodies that have no responsibility to human populations obtain weapons of mass destruction (which is a remote and avoidable possibility), then we should all be secure. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:20, 5 December 2007 (CET)
Well, other than having every intelligent nation down on them within a few hours of the threat of a nuclear bomb going off, or for that matter, one just randomly exploding, i think that would deter any terrorist or supremest group wanting to get their way. I wonder when people will realize that killing, other than being effective population control, doesnt really solve anything. The threat of attack, or the initial attack itself only causes the target to become defensive and go on a counter or "revenge" trip. The more people that die, and the more wars that are fought will only add to peoples anger and fuel the drive for retaliation. --Shadowsin 08:28, 5 December 2007 (CET)
Yeah, world population as a whole will continue to climb, but most developed countries have very little growth or have stopped growing altogether. Obscenely high birth rates in underdeveloped countries combined with immigration caps, renewed global tensions, and a looming swing in economical dominance are going to create some very discomfited people in charge of dying world superpowers facing down some very angry people in charge of the world's newly-born manufacturing powerhouses, and when that's taken with the upsurge in willful (religious) atavism that's seeming to spread like a plague and humanity being due for a major epidemic about the time the developed world's resistance will be in the shithole from overprescription and the world will have heated up enough for it to spread much more rapidly than it would have been able to forty years ago, and I can't see this next century being a whole lot of fun.
On the upside, there's gonna be some pretty cool shit coming out in the next forty years, so hopefully I'll live long enough to see some of that. -- 08:23, 5 December 2007 (CET)
Not true, Shadow. Most often, escalating death tolls, human destruction, environmental damage etc provoke people to reconcile rather than retaliate. Many terrorists accept the possibilty of death before beginning their missions, as do many of those who are positioned to defend against them. When you become so consumed with hatred that you would launch a military attack against a civilian population, your logic has become consumed by that hatred. For example, if Palestinian terrorists weren't so consumed by rage and hatred, they would abandon the policy of civilian killing, and target occupationalist strongholds to weaken their presence in the area. Personally, I take small comfort in the fact that all of the problems that plague our world today are resolvable. We can end them if you obtain the political power to. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:40, 5 December 2007 (CET)
Actually, Palestinians haven't targeted civilians in a while outside of indiscriminate rocket attacks which the Israelis are much more fond of, and Hamas has actually been seeking a peaceful resolution with the Israelis for about two months now (don't quote me on that time frame). It just isn't to the Israelis' advantage to accept it. In before anti-Semite. -- 08:46, 5 December 2007 (CET)
To be fair, it's hard to make indiscriminate attacks against sites of strategic value. If you are firing indiscriminately, you are usually hoping to maximize the civilian death toll, and/or to deplete your opponent's morale (similar to how Hitler bombed civilian sectors of Britain in WWII. Had he targetted military installations, he could have achieved aerial superiority; instead, his choice in targets allowed the RAF to mount a staunch defense). Until military targets are clumped together the way civilians often are, indiscriminate attacks against them will be of minimal value. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:52, 5 December 2007 (CET)
And that's why I like to stay the hell away from any argument involving Israel, especially considering the general American mindset regarding them: They're right, and if you disagree you're a racist. -- 08:57, 5 December 2007 (CET)
As far as nuclear attacks are concerned I'll leave you to ponder this simple question. If a suicide bomber can willingly give his life for what he believes in, what makes you think that someone with the same mindset would not push that button? Selket Shadowdancer 15:18, 26 December 2007 (EST)

My Contest :)

Thought you would like to know, that I'm currently running a Contest :) ( Inspired from your ones :) ) :P Know that you are creative, so the link is up above and any1 may enter P.S Posting this note to every1 who posted on my Talk :) ExpMoIconExperienced 05:34, 6 December 2007 (CET)


Notice main page? ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 02:20, 11 December 2007 (CET)

Yeah, Defiant is gonna get owned though, but I voted for him. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2007 (CET)
Same, but mine doesn't count. ): -- 03:02, 13 December 2007 (CET)
Wouldn't say he'll get "owned", lots of users from GWW know him from GuildWiki as a good guy. He's at least got a chance, no matter the size of said chance. Also, there's a total of three 'crats if I recall, so he can be beaten out by two other people and still win, unless I'm mistaken. --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 07:45, 13 December 2007 (CET)
There's only one seat open. — Eloc
They stagger the elections by two months and terms are for six. So there's a max of one new bcrat at any given time. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 18:25, 21 December 2007 (EST)
I would have voted for you, but alas, i lack enough contributions. Their loss imo, but tbh, idk if you could have helped fixed the problems with the wiki anyway, as the people running it don't seem to want them fixed or acknowledge that they are even there.Bob fregman 16:18, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Being a bureaucrat doesn't give you any more say in policies then any other user. DE is still fairly well-known there by most of the members, who knew him from GuildWiki... policy suggestions and whatnot can be done by anyone, and I agree with most of the people there when they say that's the best way to go about it. If people don't pay attention to policy proposals, keep trying. There's no harm to be had in repeating yourself.
Also, GW2W is just up and running, and policies there are currently non-existent; people are discussing how they should have admins there, and I might say, it's a great place to bestow some of your current experience... --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 20:17, 23 December 2007 (EST)


Ban me, but keep my ip unbanned please.1 22:34, 20 December 2007 (EST)


someone does not with me a merry christmas: User_talk:Coloneh#Your_one_hell_of_an_idiot. thought you might wanna know. happy holidays!--Coloneh 14:03, 25 December 2007 (EST)

report of vandalism

occurred on this page: user:death

committed by User:Rawrawr_Dinosaur

"This means that, with a few exceptions, no user should edit another user's page." - PvXwiki:Editing_User_Pages

see the user talk page for further evidence of disrespect, evidence of the intention of rawrawr dinosaur (to invoke conflict and violations of NPA). the talk page is here User_talk:Death


-Death 21:53, 26 December 2007 (EST)

User:Mgrinshpon also vandalized the same page. His tone on the user page is also not appropriate for a community based website.

Please punish these users as you would anyone else. Death 21:56, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Grinch reverted the vandalism, rawr didn't do NPA, rawr and misfate were banned, zzz. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 22:00, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Also, when the first thing you do on the wiki is make a long rant about how the sysops are biased, then (possibly) make a sock, then complain to the admins about nonexistant NPA and conflict (he's fooling around... not hard to see), then lie about additional vandalizing, then criticize the userpage of an admin... not your best foot forward. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 22:04, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Not grinch's userpage. Whatever it is. He's free to do as he wants to get his job done. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 22:05, 26 December 2007 (EST)

user:misfate also vandalized the user page, as well as another user page - user:reality. Death 22:07, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Reality has already been permanently banned for being your sockpuppet. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴƿıęGrinshpon animooted pie 22:08, 26 December 2007 (EST)
And Misfate and Rawr have also been banned. However, regarding the tone on my userpage, if you don't like it, don't go there. That simple. My signature also goes to my talk so you may bypass my userpage entirely if you so please. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴƿıęGrinshpon animooted pie 22:09, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Did I not clearly say that misfate had been banned as well? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 22:10, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Furthermore, armond's tone is disrespectful. He accuses me of things, and brings the nature of my character into question - i really do not think that is necessary, and is highly inappropriate for a sysop. Death 22:15, 26 December 2007 (EST)

"you...make a long rant,...complain...about nonexistant NPA and conflict...then lie about additional vandalizing"

i will not respond to this, and will try avoid posting on pvxwiki for a day to avoid further accusations / disrespect. Death 22:15, 26 December 2007 (EST)

You create an account to bitch about this wiki, other wikis and valuable contributors, and then whine when people don't like you for it? You're as much a member of this community as a vandal, and about as disruptive. No one is forcing you to be here, and if you don't like it, fuck off. Lord Belar 22:22, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Damn straight. We're not here to serve you, we're here to help the majority of the Guild Wars community. In fact, Death, instead of taking a 1 day break, either try turning over a new leaf or just stop posting here. It's called PvXwiki:Don't be a dick, the great unwritten policy. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴƿıęGrinshpon animooted pie 22:25, 26 December 2007 (EST)
oh, can I write it? =o ----InfestedHydralisk Shadow Prison(Talk*Contributions) 23:20, 26 December 2007 (EST)
"the great unwritten policy" is a part of the title, I believe. But perhaps you can write "the acceptable written policy" version of it. --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 23:47, 26 December 2007 (EST)
PvX:DBAD sounds cool =( ----InfestedHydralisk Shadow Prison(Talk*Contributions) 00:18, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Officially, it's PvX:DICK. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 08:05, 27 December 2007 (EST)
I'm a fan of PvX:DICK myself, either that or PvX:DOUCHE (Don't be a douche). Anyway, Grinch would never vandalize. Second, PvX here isn't so strict on NPA, I mean if someone says "I'm gonna fucking kill you, you son of a bitch" then of course there will be intervention, but if you call someone a "noob" then you can just frolic along with your day without a fear of the banbat. Third, yes I've been prowling Recent Changes. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 06:36, 28 December 2007 (EST)
and what if someone says "fuck off"? then what? and since Lord Belar said it, does it mean I get to say it? -Death 07:22, 29 December 2007 (EST)
so you guys don't really give a fuck about the policy, then do you? Well, then I think your guys' builds are fuckin worthless. i think the only OK builds for pvp that you have are already well-known, that you don't have any GOOD builds, and furthermore, that the entire community here is prejudiced, ignorant, and generally "noobish" so much that it's to the point that the "democracy" or whatever you call it makes this site of bad quality, and severely dampers and hinders it's chance for improvement, so much so that it brings all of guild wars down with it. If you guys can't let good builds up on what is YOUR website, then Fuck-it - why have a website? - Death 07:22, 29 December 2007 (EST)
"You're as much a member of this community as a vandal, and about as disruptive." - Lord Belar ---- there is no BASIS for this whatsoever - this is not true whatsoever... -Death 07:28, 29 December 2007 (EST)
This is ridiculous, line up to attack me, right? Go head. Keep going. - Death 07:33, 29 December 2007 (EST)
We've already explained everything to you. Just drop it, try reading what everyone else has said, and if you don't like it, take your leave. No one wants you here with your shenanigans. Come back with a better attitude. Also, our builds are the meta. I'd love to see your builds, however. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴƿıęGrinshpon animooted pie 09:25, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Elementalists with daggers? :P Lord Belar 11:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)
I think it's pretty funny that you just decide to have a go at the builds when you've lost an argument about policies. --MalaMala sig Mind Blast 12:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)
This drama is getting more and more ussual on wiki >.> Fish Signature Fishy Moooo 16:40, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Meh, more people complain that cripshot sucks. The worst part about this is it spams DE's talk. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 16:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Sigh, i mean the build iz epic >.<, and why not force DE to archive his page, gotta keep him active on pvx ^^. Fish Signature Fishy Moooo 07:39, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Cause he's getting married :P Though he probably won't get around to reading this by tomorrow, congrats again! -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 16:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)
I wonder if his wife plays GW? Lord Belar 16:36, 30 December 2007 (EST)

But now it's time for a break!

you can personally attack me here. - Death 07:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

You die. User Godliest Icon ritualist GΩdlﺄεﻯt -_- 16:42, 30 December 2007 (EST)


Hi, not sure if this is in the right place as I am still relatively new to being a registered user. I was just wondering why you removed my vote in this [1] build. I thought my use of universality was justified based on the definition given by this site's very own policy. If you could respond on that talk page I would much appreciate it. Thanks. Supa tim 23:02, 1 January 2008 (EST)

DE's on his honeymoon right now, but I'm pretty sure I know why. Universality isn't how well the idea works in other builds. It's how well the build can adapt to adverse conditions that it can reasonably be expected to encounter. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 23:07, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Thank you for your response. Just for clarification, I was working under this part of the explanation of universality, "when used in a different location than originally intended." And I do not feel as though the build can be very good outside of its intended location. However, if I have misunderstood what the community means as universality, then I apologize. Is it possible for me to re-rate the build? Thanks again. Supa tim 23:12, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Go to the ratings page, find your rating and click "edit". ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (EST)
"different location" is a screwy way of saying it. "Different situation where things are trying to counter you" would be far better. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 04:34, 2 January 2008 (EST)
WTB context, ergo: Innovation Universality is how well-suited a build is to handling/surviving when its primary function has been shut down for some reason, or how well a build can handle the counters it is likely to face. Cedave bad cedave (contributions_buildpage) 04:37, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Don't you mean universality, not innovation? ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 05:30, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Maybe... 05:36, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Didn't you mean to have four tildes instead of five? :P Lord Belar 14:03, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the help everyone. Would it be possible to change the description of Universality for clarity's sake? If the community does not mean "different location" then perhaps that should be taken out. As it is right now, it seems that location clause is the only one that really applies to farming builds; which would almost seem that most farming builds would score low on universality if you think about it. I think I get what the community means by universality now though. Thanks again. And a big congrats to DE!! Supa tim 15:29, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Do you mean the mouse-over description, or the one on PvX:VETTINg? If the former, we can pass it along, but it's a server-side thing and will take time. If it's the latter, I vote Wizardboy does it. He's good at that sort of thing. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 23:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Is it weird that everytime I hear "vetting" I think of cats, and every time I think of cats, I think of a Hugz Tiemz now cat? Maybe that's part of my problem. I discoordinately associate votes with lolcats.. Cedave bad cedave (contributions_buildpage) 01:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I meant the description found on the policy page, I'm not sure if it is the same as the mouse over description off-hand. Supa tim 10:13, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Don't think it is, but we can't change the mouse over description. Wizardboy should change the policy description imo - he's the grammar-y guy. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 14:17, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Walls of Text

I know you'll enjoy reading them, now that you're back. Hope you had a good time. Shogunshen Sig Shen(contribs) 17:45, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Lol. I even gave up on that. I'm fearing what'll happen to the Rt/any conflict on the A.N. if I leave for too long. Cedave bad cedave (contributions_buildpage) 17:48, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Heh, Armond emailed me about them and I've taken the liberty of posting. Can't say I read it all though, and you've got it wrong, I don't love to read walls of text, I like to write them :). Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:18, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Build talk:Rt/any Warmonger's Supporter/Noticeboard discussion

Me overly rude? i really think not, after spending a better part of the day QQing about how Darks build is better than Chuki's when hers was here first, 5 days before that to be exact, And then voting lower on hers due to an "already existing build" is utter bull crap. Chuki's build was great before those three sunk their claws into it and if anything their votes need to be removed and the other page merged on to Chruki's orginal build, because those skills are based on personal preference and the over all teams need. This is not the type of behavior i would expect from "future build masters" seeing as her build is exactly the same with a few minor adjustments that any braindead monkey could make based of personal preference.--Shadowsin 00:22, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Whether or not that's the case is irrelevant, your vote was overly rude, because of that (among other reasons) I removed it. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:24, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Fine, but while your at it please fix the other "votes" as well. Dragging a great build down into a lower rank because they feel another is "better" when its really the same damn thing makes me question wheter or not giving them 200% Balancing votes is really such a good idea, It makes me wonder how we even keep users on this site, if veteran build makers get preferential treatment. --Shadowsin 00:27, 9 January 2008 (EST)
On what are you basing your conclusion that "veteran build get preferential treatment"? The fact that those votes have yet to be removed or the fact that I removed your vote without removing theirs? It appears to me (I've yet to read that debate) that there's some significant opposition to the theory underlying your reasoning as to why those votes should be removed. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:33, 9 January 2008 (EST)
The fact that Rapta and Ska will vote down on a build that has exactly the same skills and within one atribute point the exact same attributes for the reason of a skill that is used as a preference by some players. Its like the Build maker of the 2nd said "Oh look that build looks great but imma change one skill and post it as a separate build" instead of just suggesting that the build have holy veil included. Then For what ever reason the build that was obviously posted before the other is moved down a rating because "The other one is better", which is up for who ever is making the team that the build is used on. And Also The vote is clearly wrong, it says the "existing OSS is better" The first existed before the second.--Shadowsin 00:37, 9 January 2008 (EST)
What you say is technically true. However, regardless of which one existed first, if there exists a consensus that a particular main bar is better, then what should probably happen is that the skills used in the less well-liked bar which differ from the better-liked bar should be added as variants to the page containing the better-liked bar. I suppose if you really cared which title was deleted, you could change the main bar of the older one such that it mirrors the newer one and then edit the variants section, but it's not terribly important. You should not merge such that the less well-liked bar is kept simply because that bar is older. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:43, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Less liked by who exactly? Both build's were marked as great until one person decided that the other should be ranked down, personally veil on a rit is pointless waste of energy, but arguing that would be like setting off another bomb wall of text. Its not the merging or which build stays that im QQ ing about, its that veteran users are going about trying to get newer users really good idea's removed because someone else made it better, instead of just helping that user along, Hell Rapta even put a dupe tag on the first build, utter ridiculousness.--Shadowsin 00:47, 9 January 2008 (EST)
(EC) It's more the basis. Yes, I know I'm on vacation, but I had to step in after Shadow linked me. Look: someone duped Chuki's build, 5 days later nonetheless, and rather than searching through current builds for anything similar, or admitting that it should be WELL'd and it's bar Optionaled in with Chuki's, Rawr and Rapta decided to introduce one of our newer users to PvX's biggest and most unfortunate flaw. I may not be explaining myself completely here, but I believe you can gather the rest of what I mean by looking into it a little. Also, see my User page if you need any further explanation. Basically, what it comes down to is extending YAV to new users, and letting the ones who have good ideas, as rare as they are especially, get their builds in without what is basically plagiarism and bias on behalf of longtime PvX contributors. I know I'm sounding like one of those traditional Conspiracy Theory QQers, but I hope you know me better, and I hope you can see where all of this is coming from. Cedave bad cedave (contributions_buildpage) 00:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Ok... so... in fact, it's completely irrelevant which one is kept (and yes, at some point they should be merged). You're merely saying that the Build:Rt/Mo OoS Hybrid Support should never have been made in the first place but instead the addition of Veil should have been brought up on the Warmonger's Supporter talk page? Honestly... yeah... maybe that should have been done... but I fail to see why this one example should have sparked such an enormous conflict, and I certainly don't think it reveals some innate flaw in the system that needs to be excised. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:55, 9 January 2008 (EST)
How's this: a merge tag for a day (so the users can see what's going to happen), add stuff from the /any as variants to the /mo, so the votes get preserved, then delete the /any. Cba doing anything myself atm, 7 am and school in 5 hours or so. –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 00:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
(EC)Well obviously because some users dont possess the kind of common sense that we do and decide to argue with big walls of text as to why they are right and never back down because they need to prove that their e-peens are biggest when infact what they are doing is wrong and spiteful. And why the conflict, because instead of stepping in and stopping this whole QQ fest before it started, the people who do have control over situations like this decided to sit back and see how it played out, instead of going with the commonsense judgment of, "This is what should have been done"--Shadowsin 01:00, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I wasn't here when this whole debate started, but honestly, both groups continued to post needlessly thus escalating the conflict. One user should have requested a merge or whatever and that should have been it. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:04, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Happened right from the start, check the Admin Noticeboard. --71.229 01:05, 9 January 2008 (EST)
(EC)I believe someone did say that, which sparked another needlessly long wall of text. Btw i "Merged the builds" and you pretty much said that me and cedave were right about most of our points, so why hasnt anything happened yet.?--Shadowsin 01:06, 9 January 2008 (EST)
(EC'd the EC x 3) Unfortunately, a lot of it came up when the whole basis of personal opinion of skills came into play. Theoretically, a Warrior with a spare skill slot and a spare Secondary would be just as well off taking Veil, was a point I tried making at one point. Anything can take it. We all know what it does and how to use it. Life had a dual purpose, however. Anyway, back to this. It's simply the fact that for once a new user had a good idea, and instead of expanding upon it, or merging into it and giving him props, several users started QQing at it because it was lacking Veil, then Rawr decided to make a rather, imnsho, invalid vote. It's just the whole theory behind it. You know I've fought for stupid things before, but I'm sure you've seen me mature as well, and I'm positive you can see where I'm coming from on this one. We need to protect, help, and guide new users, not pick out ridiculous and unnecessary details that really play little to no key role. Less Elitism and Robbery, More DICK and YAV. And yes, Elitism and Robbery is a hyperbole. Cedave bad cedave (contributions_buildpage) 01:07, 9 January 2008 (EST)
"The builds should remain separate. They are exceedingly similar, but after reviewing the available information, I've come to the conclusion that, like certain ranger builds, their playstyle is different enough that they should remain separate. More information can be found on Chuki's talk page. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 03:20, 8 January 2008 (EST)" This is all Armonds bloody fault.--Shadowsin 01:08, 9 January 2008 (EST)

(reset) Actually, it's more so a problem that Rapta and I have conflicting egos., and I have a strong belief in supporting site policies and new users who aren't QQing. Cedave bad cedave (contributions_buildpage) 01:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Then this is Partially Armonds fault.--Shadowsin 01:11, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Don't drag me into this. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 01:28, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Dont blame me for dragging you into this. You signed it not me.--Shadowsin 01:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Regardless, you still dragged me into it.
I'm considering passing around a nice cup of four hour banhammer so people will stop the whining for a bit... -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 01:34, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Good morning from Spain. Sorry for all this mess. It's my only fault as I submit the original build ;-). I already asked for a merge (even when thinking it had been duped) in the 2nd line of this discussion at the Admin Noticeboard to end the argue. Do not blame Armond. He only wanted to end this issue. Cedave (and now Shadowsin) have been helping me with this as I am new, I don't speak english very well and I don't know how to manage all this mechanisms. Anyway, thanks all for your support and sorry for giving you headaches. Merge seems the best option as said at the start of the discussion. Chuki 02:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Once again, everyone's willing to take and hand out blame for what's a blameless community event :P My main QQ is that the discussion is spreading to like a dozen pages :/ Different playstyles, different builds, as we see with the rangers, and that's my personal final word on the subject. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 02:32, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Since I don't want this to span more pages and since Armond isn't paying attention to the Noticeboard discussion after he moved it, I just want to make this clear:
A build that works, but is clearly inferior to another build, should get a lower rating than this other build. However, the rating should still be higher than for a build that doesn't work at all. Only builds that serve the same purpose may be compared in that way.
That is quoted directly from PW:VETTING. As a sysop, Armond, you should be quite knowledgable of this policy. I expect that to be demonstrated as such. And following this policy, don't remove votes with comments that are comprehensive as to a build being inferior than an existing copy found here]. Well, when you place your comment regarding your removal of that vote, I (as well as most of the community) expect that reason-of-removal to be (at least) somewhat true.
If you're having trouble as to what I'm getting at, or if these direction arrows are unclear, I'll state this directly and bluntly: The votes you removed were not low because it's a dupe, but because the bar voted on was bad, and had nothing within range of even bringing up this idea of a dupe.
That being said, I would probably avoid abandoning discussion of a build and then continue to remove votes, especially when there is extensive debate on said build.
I hope that was clear enough, and if not, feel free to ask for more clarification. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:46, 9 January 2008 (EST)
The builds were the same. Both you and skakid, re-vote your already removed votes, merge the build into the one now-of-course higher vetter build, do not state the optional skill as a merge should have (that was the only skill that was not duped - that's a merge?) and place delete tags.
I hate to tell this, but these people sucks.
Good Night.
Chuki 18:32, 9 January 2008 (EST)
A full bar with a variant is better than a bar with an optional to fill in. The other build had the better rating, so I merged yours into it. Life is mentioned in variants, I rewrote part of the build and changed its name. –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 18:35, 9 January 2008 (EST)
How can be so false and so liar. The build had a better rating until rapta and skakid revote their already removed votes. The dumped the build and, inmediatly, in one miute (What a casuality!!) builds are merged.... All of you three can go to..... I'm not violating policies or DICKing... but what you are doing has no name. Maybe trolling, maybe fucking this_is_my_wiki_and_do_what_i_want_to.
Good Night
Chuki 18:40, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Underscores_don't_make_stuff_cooler. I couldn't care less what happens, I already explained this twice yesterday and in my edit summaries. The tag was on there for a day while I clearly stated yesterday that I'd merge your build into variants. I leave the merge tag on for a day, no comments. I added the difference between the 2 builds as a variant. I used the higher rated build as the base, as that's only logical. If their votes are incorrect, it has nothing to do with me, as I'm not an admin (so I can't remove them) nor did I even vote. Also, don't claim I'm trolling or vandalizing when I'm only trying to merge. If I wanted to troll, I would've gone along with the 50+ line argument that didn't amount to anything in stead of trying to draw it into conclusion. Also, take note of PvX:DIS, as someone stated before. –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 19:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.