FANDOM


Vista-file-manager 50x50 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Gladiator

I have reasons for wanting it to be pushed through the vetting process. I want people to vote on it using our current sytem. After it is failed, Im going to archive it, with the votes. And it will give us unarguable reason (and a specific exception to the delete policy just for these cases) build that we can use to cite PvXWell, as of right now the others are sheduled for deletion. I want firm standing ground for on site deletion of future wammo builds, and the only way were 'legally' gonna get that is by letting 1 version of the build be vetted upon. Shireensysop 07:50, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

So, I am not being nice. Im giving every admin un-refutable proof, from the community, to be jerks on this and just straight up nuke these builds. Lay a little ground work to cover our buts. Please... Shireensysop 07:52, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

Why would we archive this? It was never a viable build after the beta and HH was made an elite. That would put the other archived builds to shame. We don't need "unarguable reasons" to cite PvX:WELL; we can just link to "PvX:WELL," which gives all the explanation anyone will ever need. Heck, keeping it would be against WELL. Retaining examples of builds that we delete is pretty redundant imo. There realy is no 'legality' here; not only do admins have autonomous powers, but we would be acting in accordance to existing site policy. Like I said, I think you're being too nice. We need to take a firm stance against HH/Mending Wammos if nothing else. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:55, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

Im not saying archive, but just have the build with a notice tag on it (not a sorting tag). And it's there for the soul purpose of pointing to it, and being able to say, there is the build, so we don't need your versoin. Nuke. That way people dont (1) get so upset over their build being quickly deleted. (2) It actually lets those users see that the build failed during a vote (to stop the argument, perhaps it would pass if you let people vote on it), (3) Stop the argument that it was never allowed part in the current vetting process. Im not being stupid, unreasonable or too nice. Im laying ground work and setting an example of how to deal with those gosh darn builds that we hate to see 4 bazillion coppies of. There are enough people in the discussion page alone to unfavor it completely and totally in under 5 minutes. Rally them together and vote it. I remove the standard sorting tag for a "Notice Tag: This build would normally be deleted, but users insist on submitting this UNFAVORED BUILD. All other versions, copy cats and variants will be deleted upon site and given this build as citation for PvX:Well." That way if people want to see it, they can. People who try to submit it, have something they can see. Less people bitching about the site, and more moving on with their lives. And admins have gained a tool by utilizing this system to the hilt. Shireensysop 08:04, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

After it is failed, Im going to archive it, with the votes." Yes, you are saying you will archive it. Fact is, we don't need references for deletion. Do you see us having examples of images we delete, or redirects, or abandoned articles anywhere on the wiki? We don't keep examples of things we've deleted. Like I said on the build talk page though, let's try to keep this discussion in one place. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:10, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

No but people arnt trying to constantly upload the same image over and over again, either. And most of the people who submit this kind of build are brand new and are inexperienced players themselves. They get buthurt when, what they think is them filling a gap in our build coverage, we all jump on the 'wamo' train and nuke the build out of existance, without ever documenting it so the next future guy who comes along can do the same thing themselves. We do this, were going to come across a lot more friendly when this mistake is made "I'm sorry, we don't need this build - See, it's allready been done." as opposed to "NOT ANOTHER ONE OF THESE! BEGONE!". Thats the perspective I am fighting for, customer service to assist in maintaining the new people who contribute. Shireensysop 08:22, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

Except they're not our customers. If they want to post builds here, they have to play by our rules. If they leave, big deal, we have one less user posting his HH/Mending Wammo on the wiki. That saves us work too, not having to delete it if he isn't posting it. We don't have to cater to them, we get nothing out of it. The privilege is theirs' to be able to post here, not ours to be able to delete their builds. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:29, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

Were site admins, of course they are our customers. *mind is boggled* Were here to support the site and what it can do... We don't choose our users, the user choose us. Which means adressing common issues in efficent ways and trying to make this site user friendly to everybody. We have to try to understand, appreciate and adapt to the behavior of our common users while attempting to influence behaviors towards desired results will create a stronger system. Im adressing the first half, adapting to common behaviors that are not isolated incidents. Shireensysop 08:34, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

They're not customers; are they paying us anything? Are they providing any sort of service for us? No, not at all. On the flip side, we are the ones who run this place and make it available to them. If you wanted an accurate real-life analogy, this place is more like a public library. When you go to the library, you have to play by the library's rules: bring the books back when they want you to, keep quiet etc. As you can see, the privilege is theirs; and if they want to post here, they have to abide by our rules. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:42, 7 July 2007 (CEST)
  • faceplants* A library is a public service paid for by the city. As customers of the library we have several rights, expectations and demands we can make. If the library doesnt play by our rules, during the next city council meeting we get voted out. Im just trying to make this site as strong as possible by addressing customer service and trying to give realistic attention and concessions to the entire userbase. Why does it feel like whenever I make an attempt to take the true, average person who visits this site into account, I am met with stark resistance? Shireensysop 08:55, 7 July 2007 (CEST)
Libraries must be run differently where I come from. Public libraries don't have customers; people borrow books from them. GCardinal pays for this wiki for the users, just like a library. Libraries don't get ousted in city council meetings where I live, and the users here can't oust GCardinal, the admins, or any other user. To make the site as strong as possible means getting rid of all the bad builds, not most of them. People will come here looking for the bset builds they can get, so we have to tell them what is good and what is bad; they will not already know this, otherwise they wouldn't be coming to us for help. Using this logic, it is up to us to administrate the site in such a way that will provide the best resource for the userbase that we can. We're not going to get there by being nice to every one; we're going to get there by being honest, critical, and by getting rid of all these ridiculous and non-functional builds, "customer" service be damned. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 09:02, 7 July 2007 (CEST)
Wow, I think my concept of syop job description has a few more clauses and additional paragraphs than most. The user base is what defines the wiki, and we should try to embrace, rather than alienate. We can have both, friendly admins and service and the best refrence site on the net for guild wars builds. Keystone to this site is a userbase that makes quality contributions. Right now, the base of people that are making quality contributions is relatively small compared to the people who come and view our site. There are more poor contributors than good contributors. We have two possible solutions:
  • 1 - We discourage any poor contributtors (people) to this site by not making allownces for them and giving the majority of our time to the minority of builds (the few that are really good by the few contributors that 'get it'). This seems to be the attitude and concept of the majority of the admin staff (see your comment above).
  • 2 - The other solution is to try and increase our usefull contributor base, take what we have and develop it, encouraging the poor userbase to make contributions while continuing to teach them. To encourage we have to make concessions and allowances to let them explore and view concepts that are inferior, but ultimately those concepts must fail in order to maintain quality vetted builds on this site. With the expansion of a learning user base this site will grow exponentially faster than if we stayed with method 1, but we will experience some very, clumsy growing pains when we get started.
Can you see my point? Im trying to utilize this build as a learning tool and a method to ease the need for arguing and alienating the new people who show up and go "Wammo build is missing, let me add it." Shireensysop 09:16, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

I've gotten into the middle of a lot of things, so for this one, I'm not going to express my opinion, though it will probably be apparent which side I am on. A quote from PvXwiki:Administrators:
"This responsibility manifests itself both in the practical powers granted to Administrators, Deletion, Rollback, and Banning, as well as the more general Administrative role of attempting to ensure a high level of professionalism on the Wiki, while also attempting to make the Wiki as user friendly as possible." Bluemilkman 17:36, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

People come to this wiki looking for help finding the best builds out there. Making the wiki "user friendly" does not entail clogging up the wiki with copies of horrible HH/Mendng Wammos, LT Necros, and Backfire/Empathy Mesmers, and making their search more difficult. We will make the wiki more "user friendly" by making it clean, efficient and organized, and ensuring that it contains the best builds in the game for those users who come looking for them. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 17:59, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

MSN -Shireen

Preferably 8 Mountain time, give or take. Leave a note if you are unable to attend, and I shall reschedule. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 02:30, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

Well man, we were going to talk about Shireens ideas, however, he seems to have deleted them :/. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 08:03, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

Sorry I missed the messages. Due to real-life concerns, this is the first time I have been able to check this site in about 48 hours. I will post something up when I get home from work tonight (should be before 10pm my time). It looks like he moved most of the conversation into his userspace here. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 18:28, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

lol

i forgot how to make it say "this build was previously designed for (blah blah). thc for the fix =D Skakid9090 21:11, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Np. As you will see in just a few seconds, I am about to go on a purge of the archives. Details soon to follow at Category talk:Archived builds. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 21:14, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Catboys

  • You asked me what a catboy was...so I'll give you a few examples.
  • [One]
  • [Two]
  • [Three]
  • Hope that clears things up O_o --Hikari 05:47, 15 July 2007 (CEST)
  • Readem says you fail >_> --Hikari 07:06, 15 July 2007 (CEST)
Of course he did... :-) - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:08, 15 July 2007 (CEST)
Thanks btw. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:16, 15 July 2007 (CEST)
Don't worry Krowman, you fail because you pwn so badly. Unlike some person I know *cough* "Skakid!" Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:29, 19 July 2007 (CEST)
Readem sucks - Skakid9090 04:31, 19 July 2007 (CEST)
>.>... Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:35, 19 July 2007 (CEST)
i pwn cause i fail so badly! err... wait... - Skakid9090 04:37, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

For U

Edit as u plxes.

Foreverwafer This user pwns this newb.

Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:41, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

I put An elite on my build

Victory is Mine is the one i put, simply because it may be more well received than the elite i like(atleast for AB), Auspicious Parry.Build:W/D 'Liteless AxeDark0805|Rant 20:12, 23 July 2007 (CEST)

Insulting comment?

What? Bluemilkman 06:26, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

Immaturity isn't a positive attribute. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 06:28, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

ummmm, did you look at what that whole section was a response to? http://www.pvxwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Build:Team_-_HB_Balanced&action=rate Bluemilkman 06:32, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

I'd question such a negative vote on the most popular HB meta build too. Removal of the vote without any inquiry could be seen as taking it too far, but that situation really suffered due to lack of communication between the involved users. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 06:35, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

The point is, "Suck less" is not a reason to remove a vote. "This is the meta right now and is because it works" is a lot better. The user had every right to say what he said. Bluemilkman 06:39, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

No, he didn't. He acted in violation of NPA, even if he felt he was acting in retaliation. I agree with you; Readem could have elaborated in his removal of the vote, but you're just echoing the point I made above. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 06:42, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

The immaturity started when Readem told Six to "Suck less." So if Six was in violation of PvX:NPA, for saying the same thing as Readem, then by golly, Readem was too. I'm out for tonight. Bluemilkman 06:47, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

I'm disappointed with the way you have taken quotations from their brief spat and twisted them out of context. Six was unhappy that Readem removed his vote, ragequit the wiki, and take a few shots at Readem in passing. Let's not get bogged down in whether Readem's "Suck less" comment was meant as a poorly-worded suggestion that Six needed to learn to play the build better, or that it was meant as purely as an insult. Six took his first shot before Readem even knew who he was. No matter what your opinion on the dispute is, retaliation is never a justification for a personal attack. It's nice that we are having this discussion on a computer, because I can just copy-paste the points I made above and restate down here. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:02, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
to tell the truth i think that was a joke, but readem doesn't understand he can be menal-ly (new word) sarcastic with people he doesn't know xD - Skakid9090 07:07, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

Build:R/any Marauding Master

I just wanted to mention that things are getting out of hand in the Build: R/any Marauding Master build. SkaKid9090, who seems to be in league with Rapta, changed his vote intentionally to force rating down enough to validate the placement of a trash build tag. I don't know what I did to piss these two people off, but they do seem to be actively trying to kill the build I submitted with much prejudice. Greevar 06:31, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

I'll have a look for ya. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 06:35, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
If you check recent ratings you'll see I only voted on it once. Don't falsely accuse me of things. There is no policy against voting against a build I don't like, and Rapta explaining my feelings of the build. Thanks. - Skakid9090 06:38, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

votes

appreciated if you could remove the "no healing" vote from Build:N/any OoU Minion Master. I thas vamp horrors and SoLS for healing, + the optional slot was recommended to have healing in it. thanks - Skakid9090 10:05, 25 July 2007 (CEST)

Taken care of. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 21:26, 25 July 2007 (CEST)

Hey

You interested in making Build of the Week? No names, or any of that shit, but I know you obs some and I obs and create random abominations all the time. Might be fun. Tell me if you are interested, and I'll scrap it together. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:58, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

Maybe you should do Synergies of the Week. YOu could mention any set of 3 or more skills that synergize in a certain way. Leave it up to the rest of us to put those synergies into a build properly? (now that i look at it, its a lame idea, but ill post ne ways) ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 05:15, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
Do you mean something that is observed a lot, or something really strange that isn't so common? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:35, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
Either/Both. Just skills that seem to synergize well. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 07:37, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

Sig

like my new sig? — Skasig Skakid9090 07:42, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

Love it. Where's the RAWR!!!? Any way, I enjoy the more lax attitude towards the Signature policy on this site. Some users' 'creations' are always entertaining, or introduce you to some new and exotic letters and such from Wikipedia.. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:49, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
oops, got lost. this is better. — RAWR! Skasig Skakid9090 07:51, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

while we're on the subject, what is your sig? i must know! - — RAWR! Skasig Skakid9090 07:57, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

This icon is my family's simplified coat of arms. It is Polish, if any one was wondering/interested. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:01, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
I have my mother's Scottish (Celtic?) crest on my PC as well. Not really worth it to upload, but it is the Primrose clan. [1][2] for a little more info on her family's history. Kowal translates to 'smith' in English [3], so it and its derivatives are very common surnames in Poland and North America, since many Eastern Europeans were enticed to the continent under Canada/USA's homesteading campaigns. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:26, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

'ello.

i'm sorry if i asked the wrong person, but please have a look at user:Warrior Zez since he seems to me to be socking in all the builds he made. (to try to contrast the wiki's negative votes). He also admitted in his userpage he has been doing it through IRL friends, asked sorry, then continued like it was nothing.. thanks for the attention.--Morten 01:22, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

We don't yet have a special page for ratings the way we do for contributions, so if you can think of any of the builds/votes in question, could you please provide a link? I am aware of the ones he has posted on his userpage, but that's about it atm. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 05:40, 28 July 2007 (CEST)
The builds he claims in his userpage, are all flawed in this way or almost,i am referring to those on his userpage. i think he wouldnt mind about others'.if i got a grasp of the character correctly, he seems to want his builds "go far" (his words). i had a little talk with him. i come from old gwiki build section, you can imagine why i go berserk when i see people acting this immature about their builds, forcing them to be vetted even if theyr no good. from my point of view, this user keeps repeating the same process: comes up with a questionable build, posts it, votes and socks on it , and the first three or four votes are always extremely high with almost no reason left, and made by the same account names which are all newly created and never seen around. if i come across any other similar siruation i'll provide you with a link --Morten 12:46, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

Build Deletion

Do you know if Build:Convicted Wounder was deleted? Please respond on my user page--Metal enchantment Metal Enchantment (talk · contributions) 05:47, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

I know what went wrong, lol I was using a testing build instead of a tested build. Been using this a while so It gave me the chance to rate.--Metal enchantment Metal Enchantment (talk · contributions) 05:53, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

Votes

The vote by User:Hide-And-Seek on Build:W/N_Speed_Kills is 0-0-0 with no reasons given. It seems like something an admin should have a look at. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 06:10, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

Taken care of. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:19, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

Main Page

Please make sure that you include Mo/W or Team - in builds name when adding new ones to featured untested builds. gcardinal 19:52, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

My mistake. Sorry. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 06:16, 29 July 2007 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.