Vista-file-manager 50x50


  1. /Archive 1

clean! --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 13:00, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

If anyone's wondering about my revisions 171745~7. It was wrong site. :P Meant to do it on the test site.

Related to Team - Recall Luxon Arena Faction Farm your comment was it was require for 8 human, wrong heros can reduce to 2. kullwarrior

What if they don't have heroes? --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 21:26, 17 July 2007 (CEST)

luk i r in ur tawk pagez XD Iwan13talk 19:17, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

so i herd...'re a native Korean. That's pretty awesome. You're going to be my first Korean friend. Please sign my userpage under "Cool People". Because you, sir, are a cool person. ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡I͡n͡f͡i͡d͡e͡l̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı__̡͌l̡* 20:07, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

lol... too bad you didn't get to make friends with any other 50million korean, huh? --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 20:13, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Yeah =( But you will be my bestest Korean friend. Right? ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡I͡n͡f͡i͡d͡e͡l̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı__̡͌l̡* 20:18, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I don't even know you... --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 20:18, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Well. I am Infidel. Nice to meet you =) ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡I͡n͡f͡i͡d͡e͡l̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı__̡͌l̡* 20:19, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Right... Hi. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I've always wanted a Korean friend since I was a little boy. And now I have one. Unless you won't want to be my friend... =( ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡I͡n͡f͡i͡d͡e͡l̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı__̡͌l̡* 20:22, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Sure.. w/e... as long as I don't have to do anything. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
All you must do is be my friend. Nothing else. Sounds good? Oh, and do you have a Korean keyboard? I want to see what Infidel looks like in Korean characters. ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡I͡n͡f͡i͡d͡e͡l̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı__̡͌l̡* 20:24, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I have MX3200 with one of [1] these on top of it... --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
So that means you could type Infidel in Korean characters? If you can, please do =D ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡I͡n͡f͡i͡d͡e͡l̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı__̡͌l̡* 20:29, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I thought I don't have to do anything 인피델. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, you don't have to do it. I was just asking you, y'know, as a friend =) Since we are friends now. ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡I͡n͡f͡i͡d͡e͡l̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı__̡͌l̡* 19:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

ãdmin nõticebõãrd

discussion should be kept off it. If you want to discuss something then do it on the talk page of the build or the admin please. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 14:41, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

It's not a discussion. it's a real appeal. They need to change it. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 14:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
No, you misunderstood me. Basically you add "This is wrong" to the admin noticeboard, then maybe the admin decides to remove or not. Regardless of his opinion further discussions are kept elsewhere. THe admin noticeboard should be kept clean of discussions. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
But you do have to agree that on what grounds "this is wrong" has to be said? otherwise, there's no message to be delivered. There just happens to be large number of votes that needs to be appealed. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, yes, yes. But you should keep discussions and appeals on the talk page of the admin or the build, that's all I wanted to say. Otherwise the noticeboard will be clogged up, and it shouldn't be that. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 14:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Archive? Clean then. Btw, I did do the discussion on the talk page of admin, but someone said post there instead. lol :P --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 14:53, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
You make a (short) post there describing what you think and then an admin answers, if you don't agree then go to his talk page to discuss it. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 15:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Yea... ok... uh... he started it? :P Getting so much flames for what I say. Not that it's unusual. lol --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 15:09, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Don't delete stuff from the noticeboard without archiving it in resolved issues. If you aren't planning to do that, pop back in there and undo your changes. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 18:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Fuck me. Nevermind if Shen asked you to. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 18:20, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
It's not deleted, it's moved. It's at least what I figured shen wanted me to do... his comment is at bottom. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 18:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Just a by the way...

PvXWiki isn't a democracy, it's a wiki. They are different. The admins want the site to be accurate and a good build reference, they don't want it to be what the majority wants it to be, which is touch rangers, dark aura bombers, rangers with daggers, riposte wammos and physicals with 8 attack skill on their bar. Good day to you sir. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 14:46, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I know pvxwiki isn't democracy. But the real vetting is based on it. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
To some extent. We don't allow all users to freely rate however, otherwise we would still be forced to keep all of Rawr's exec spike 0-0-0 votes. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 14:53, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I know and I agree with the policies outlined in real vetting and appeal procedures for removal of votes (wish we could do that for real votes). In fact, I voted for real vetting back when they were deciding it. Rawr's vote is a clear attempt to annoy / distrupt the voting system which goes against 7th clause of real vetting on vote removals. But ones I'm posting on are removed without legal conditions of removal. It's simply removed for disagreement. Whether or not there is a purposeful sway of the votes to one side by voting 5/5/5 or 0/0/0 is arguable. but as long as it lacks evidence of it, it should be left alone. People have different opinions of builds. Someone might love it, someone might hate it. Not everyone's vote needs to be cluttered together and make a unanimous one. That was never the ideas of how real vetting should work. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 15:09, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Maoism and Stalinism are based upon Marxism, they aren't the same thing. I don't really see the problem with the RA Bonder, it is inferior to a good monk, but still serviceable and as such has been vetted in the other category, seems appropriate to me. It's not like they only accepted votes under 2.5. Also, any of those people could have resubmitted their votes with mild revision, such as saying it was "Great" when voting it over 4.5, readjusting the numbers so they agreed with what they were saying/reality etc. In most cases simply elaborating would have been enough for the voters to get their votes reinstated, with short votes it is difficult to ascertain whether or not the voter understands game mechanics and I understand fallacies are grounds for vote removal. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 15:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Also a common assumption is that votes are based on personal opinions; that is wrong. Votes are based on facts and nothing more or less, opinions should never be in the votes. I for example think it can be fun to run around with a extremely crappy build just to annoy people, that - however - doesn't make it 5-5-5 worthy. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 15:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
RE: Misery : You have to understand i'm not defending my build or my votes. I'm a completely 3rd party person comming in from an unbaised view and seeing power abuse. Some of these are people who are likely not even around anymore. They don't have the power to say. And YES!!!! they can just remove "good" and write "great" instead and there's no reason for a vote removal anymore. But look to your common sense. If it works with that one word changed instead, then look at it like that. Apprently you are supposed to look at all variants and supposed to take logical measures as in taking minor rune instead of sup rune before voting. That's a little beyond common sense if you ask me. But all of a sudden, in vote removal, this kind of extreme literal words are good enough for vote removal? Don't think so.
You say it's inferior to a good monk is your opinion and for that you get to make your vote accordingly. They thought it was worth over 4.5. Where's the wrong in that? So why does that need to be removed? Look at votes like Victoryisyours' in RA bonder for example. 1. It's an insult, 2. He doesn't explain why, 3. It's a 1 liner. Yet, the other end of the scale with at least no insult gets removed. There's lots of these going on around and I'm not about to make 100 appeals. There are tons of 1 liners, it's a fact. Another fact is that it is not a legal reason outlined for vote removal.
RE: Godbox : If you run a crappy build, is it your opinion to vote 5/5/5? The opinion is the reflection of the facts in their eyes. If the facts are so completely objectionable and there is absolutely no subjective matter at all, then there is no point to voting. You can just calculate out what is good. They arn't asked to vote do you run this? yes/no. They are asked to vote how good it is. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 15:29, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Ratings are supposed to be objective evaluations of the build's current effectiveness, not overall strength. Look in archives, some builds have been archived because of meta shifts, while still working fine. Builds may work great in one meta, but be obsolete the next month, even without any nerfs, because people have started to bring more counters to it or learned how to fight it. The bonder, for example, works great vs. heavy amounts of physical damage users, but fares poorly against spell damage, interrupts or enchantment removal. So, while it may work great at some points in time, it will be utterly demolished at other times. The problem with RA, is that the "meta" can change every few days, with popularity of classes, tactics and skills constantly rising and falling. Thus, a build which works great, but only works every so often is less viable than a build like WoH, which adapts fairly well to changes in the builds of opponents, and has a constant and predictable preformance. Hope that helps a bit. Dejh 15:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree completely with you (only because you put the words "supposed to be" before objective, although I would have gone with "ideally") but I don't know how that constitutes removal of the votes. If the meta changes back, they rn't going to undo the vote removals. They aren't going to archive it. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
My point was that RA meta changes too fast for builds that only work in specific metas to stay vetted, as they would need to be re-rated every few days. If a build in some place such as HA or GvG where the meta changes relatively slowly comes back into favor after being archived, it will be re-vetted or un-archived. RA is just too unpredictabe. Dejh 16:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
But re-rating frequently is not a plausible solution. Repeatedly removing and reapplying votes as it changes is not plausible either. Archiving something because of change in meta is part of the policy, but vote removing is not. And bonder still does work. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (T|C) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (EDT)


The disclaimer includes appeals. Write whatever you wish to dispute on the build talk page, and follow up with a note on the AN. Thanks. -Shen 17:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)


How've you been lately? ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡I͡n͡f͡i͡d͡e͡l̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı__̡͌l̡* 23:33, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.