hey there, welcome to the wiki. Skakid9090 22:44, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Hi. :) Gem 22:46, 14 September 2007 (CEST)
Hello, welcome to the wiki. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 22:50, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Political comments (and mixed messages)

Hi. In your starting comment here, you bring up the legal aspect of gwiki, and use it as a reason not to support that wiki ("GuildWiki has now been illegaly, against it's non-commercional license, sold to Wikia. This wiki should not support an action like that.")
Shortly thereafter, after your logic/evidence was questioned by User:Phenaxkian, you reply with "Ok guys, stop discussing the legality of the transfer. This is merely about the linkage on this wiki." Please pick one stance and stick with it. If you're going to make an assertion, don't be wishy-washy about it and pull out later; if you're going to do such things, refrain from making said assertions in the first place. Thanks. -Auron 23:56, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Sorry, I was just trying to say that the discussion was going to sidetracks. That's why I also placed the small tags around that argument. As far as my understanding on these issues goes, there was a license break on GWiki, but I didn't want that people here start to discuss whether or not that action was illegal. I wanted to discuss the main thing for this wiki which is linkage in this wiki, not the possible license breach on GWiki. -- (gem / talk) 00:47, 15 September 2007 (CEST)
Ie I did not switch my mind on the situation at GuildWiki. I stick to my view and hold to it until proven false. -- (gem / talk) 00:54, 15 September 2007 (CEST)


there is tons of it here. only a few sane people keep the site running. Skakid9090 18:02, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Yeah, that's what I understood. Like I said previously, the wiki split of GuildWiki to GuildWiki + PvPwiki also split the community to those who are interested in documenting the game and to those who like squabbling amongst themselves, which is made easy in the PvXwiki. -- (gem / talk) 01:02, 17 September 2007 (CEST)
Antagonizing PvXwiki is not appreciated. We try our best to stop any wikidrama that does spring up. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 01:04, 17 September 2007 (CEST)
While simultaneously initiating it, it seems. Anyways, hope you stick around, and don't let a few of the more 'vocal' users mislead you about the rest of us' opinion on you. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 01:15, 17 September 2007 (CEST)
I'm not sure if Krowman realizes that he's basically saying exactly what I meant, except phrased differently. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 01:29, 17 September 2007 (CEST)
I think its funny. gg. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 01:31, 17 September 2007 (CEST)
I figured you were warning him against antagonizing some of the users here? Does sarcasm fail the intraweb again? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 01:44, 17 September 2007 (CEST)
The antagonizing bit was referring to his description of PvXwiki's contributors as uninterested in documenting the game and as enjoying squabbling amongst themselves. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 01:47, 17 September 2007 (CEST)
Krowman, thanks for asking me to stay so nicely. I appreciate it very much as it's the first nice thing I've been said in this wiki. But still, quoting my user page: "I guess I'll just search and edit builds and stay completely out of the talk pages." -- (gem / talk) 03:20, 17 September 2007 (CEST)
This edit is made in an attempt to unbold your talk page in my watched pages list, which has stayed bold despite the fact that I have indeed visited the page. Pleas disregard, thank you. Єяøהħ 13:29, 17 September 2007 (CEST)

Quick Note

I have no intention of removing your vote on the Touch Ranger for the time being; however, I thought I'd point out a common misconception which appears in your vote (and this is partially our fault as well). Universality is really more a measure of flexibility than the sheer number of places for which the build is designed. In fact, there was originally a proposal that Flexibility and Universality (in the sense of "number of places in which a build is viable") be separate category; however, it became apparent that scoring a build high simply because it was viable in a number of places (and vice versa) since the best GvG build ever might not be viable in PvE, or even HA or something. Consequently, Universality is more a rating of how a build can react to a variety of situations within the confines of the places for which it is deemed viable. I may simply be reading too much between the lines (or not enough, I guess...), and you may have simply meant that it could react to a variety of situations within the scope of the places it claims to be viable for, but, I figured I'd leave a note just in case. Cheers. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:42, 29 October 2007 (CET)

Thanks for the long note explaining this since I had misunderstood the universality point. I still hold to my vote however since the build can pretty much handle everything in PvE, bar possibly elite missions and DoA where I haven't tried it, so it really can respond to what ever thrown at it as well as anything could be expected to. -- (gem / talk) 06:39, 30 October 2007 (CET)

Concerning Grinch,

Pretty sure he has been pretty severely reprimanded and took a little vacation(read: ban) at some point, though I don't think for that(not sure why you'd expect people to be banned or otherwise punished for humor). --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 02:25, 30 October 2007 (CET)

What humor? -- (gem / talk) 06:35, 30 October 2007 (CET)
That entire thing was a joke, why else did he do the entire thing in alliteration...? - Rawrawr 22:32, 30 October 2007 (CET)
What thing? -- (gem / talk) 23:27, 30 October 2007 (CET)
The one you link to. - Rawrawr 23:33, 30 October 2007 (CET)
Oh, that's not the only thing in that discussion that wasn't something that I wouldn't expect from a sysop. -- (gem / talk) 23:59, 30 October 2007 (CET)
One word: random. I liek random.
See? Me being random again! Toodles! —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 01:59, 31 October 2007 (CET)
You wouldn't expect it from a sysop because once you're a sysop all you're allowed to do is stay 110% serious and stick by every policy all of the time - they intend whats best for the wiki instead of making it all turn into a big flop (cough guildwiki) - Rawrawr 18:06, 2 November 2007 (CET)

Vote Removal

"Oh lol, admins delete votes that don't follow their views exactly and let votes with suiting numbers even if their explanations suck." -- (gem / talk) 22:16, 29 October 2007 (CET)

I'd have to say I agree with you, and it's that in addition to people who whine about the bad votes they get or about the good votes that contradict their view, then get those votes removed... People act rather elitist when making decisions about vote removal. єяøהħ 01:49, 31 October 2007 (CET)

err, no idea why I relayed that to you though...guess I decided venting in your direction would somehow change the wiki. єяøהħ 01:50, 31 October 2007 (CET)
Well, atleast you proved to me that this wiki isn't 100% rotten. -- (gem / talk) 01:54, 31 October 2007 (CET)
Yes, but unfortunately I'm no where near skilled enough to glance at a build to know how good it is, and I'm unable to argue against any of the vote removals. Before I took my 1 month "back to school" break, I was considering proposing a change to the vetting/vote removal system. But I really have no idea what it should change to. єяøהħ 02:04, 31 October 2007 (CET)
[1] imo. -- 02:30, 31 October 2007 (CET)
A start, but it still needs something to protect from vote funneling. єяøהħ 03:24, 31 October 2007 (CET)
? -- 03:26, 31 October 2007 (CET)
Forcing or Funneling only votes that are agreeable to the vote removers preference. єяøהħ 03:38, 31 October 2007 (CET)
That's going to be velly velly difficult. -- 03:40, 31 October 2007 (CET)
Words can be powerful. єяøהħ 04:18, 31 October 2007 (CET)
Just wanted to let you know Gem, that you are NOT the only one that feels as you do. I may be a small fry in the PvXwiki community, but I have been one nasty voice here, as I feel that the policies are slanted in a wrong direction half the time, and I feel that the other half the time, (most of) the admins are intolerable bigots who's personal opinions take precedence over anyone else's on the site because of their supreme position of authority. I feel like I am arguing with 5 year olds sometimes.  :-/ However, although I may have my issues with the people at times or the policies here, I recognize that there really is not a better build-related website out there, and I am still here.... - Lord Xivor 06:58, 2 November 2007 (CET)
Not if other admins don't allow new builds to become vetted. єяøהħ 00:48, 10 November 2007 (CET)
What do you mean? - Lord Xivor 13:27, 10 November 2007 (CET)
Replace the word new with bad there, and yes thats what admins do. They're only stopping the site from getting even worse. - Rawrawr 13:31, 10 November 2007 (CET)
... or making it worse in some cases. -- (gem / talk) 17:00, 10 November 2007 (CET)
Like? Image-Dark Morphon's SiggieDark Morphon(contribs) 07:57, 5 January 2008 (EST)
You're 2 months too slow. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 15:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)
But you're just in time for a perfect example! Lord Belar 15:30, 5 January 2008 (EST)
I'd rather upset some idiots who voted positively for a 50000 second recharging spike build than suffer having inferior builds. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 17:51, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.