FANDOM



Pioneers

If you don't play GWs anymore, I can invite you back. Otherwise, nvm. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 18:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Build Deletion

You deleted Rt/W_Spiritual_Melee_Master|Rit Warrior? It's not my build, but I liked it and was going to test it tonight Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 11:11, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Someone tagged the page with a WELL tag. I'll check the history. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 11:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, it's a dupe of something deleted before, and is inferior to a primary warrior. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 11:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I've seen this argument posted higher on your page, but shouldn't a build that's not obviously bad be vetted? As for as inferior to primary Warrior, an extra 35 damage with each hit doesn't seem to be bad. At least put a well tag on it so people who want to try the build can grab the code before it's ganked. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Which build was previously deleted which it resembled? Or is it completely lost and so can not be shown? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 11:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Isn't immediate deletion a violation of this? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 11:35, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Deleted builds can't be referenced naturally. Generally Spirit's Strength builds get deleted as they trade survivability and utility for big domoge. If you can spec such that you still do big domoge, have an IAS and IMS while meeting the requirements for your shield, you will have a good Spirit's Strength build, but I'm pretty sure stats don't stretch that far. - Misery Is Hawt19px 11:42, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
The build in question did have an IAS. However, this is beside the fact. According to the addendum, builds are not to be deleted immediately, correct? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 11:45, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
It had one of the several things I mentioned, that is not meeting all the criteria. That addendum gets broken all the time, especially for cases that crop up a lot like Spirit's Strength or Dagger rangers, usually the author can ask why/have the build restored to their user space. If you want it restored to your user space even if you're not the author, I'm sure Rapta can oblige. - Misery Is Hawt19px 11:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Wehter it's deleted now or in a few weeks, when it's rotting in trash, it doesn't matter. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 11:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
All those conditions can be easily met. You can take None Shall Pass (like an IMS since you catch up while they're down - and requires no attributes) or take Rush, which, as a non-warrior primary, gives you 8s at 0 strength. So if the author was informed of these defficiencies, they could have been rememdied. Again, immediate deletion seems to go against the PvX guidelines. @Ricky: doesn't matter if it's trash if the policies say it can't be deleted immediately (and you can see why if you read the beginning of this post). Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
It's in the policy that builds violating PvX:WELL may be deleted immediately. The build was tagged for WELL. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 12:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
It wasn't tagged unless about a minute before deletion. I had just visited the build and it had not tag. I went back to it to get the code and found it deleted. Unless someone removed the well tag in which case, let me know if it was and I'll research. If the build wasn't tagged, and you still don't feel like the adendum was violated, then how do you interpret the adendum? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
(adendum of my own hopefully no ECs) It seems like the adendum tries to accomplish what I was describing earlier. If an admin feels a build is deficient for one reason or another, he/she is obligated to let the author no in order for them to remedy - not delete the build. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Please don't disregard my last two posts to focus on this only. I went to the recent changes page to see if a well tag had ever been added. I brought up the last 500 changes and did a Spiritual search... only two hits returned, one for the build deletion and one for the talk page deletion...but the changes to the build prior to its deletion were on there about 10 minutes ago...can anyone explain this? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:24, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

If I can't get an answer to the above questions, I'm going to take it to the admin notice page so it'll get a bit more visability. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 13:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
When a page is deleted, all it's history is deleted too, so you can't see when it was tagged with WELL. As for your comments about putting in Rush etc, when you do that you take out critical skills to the effectiveness of the build so it ends up mediocre, that's why Spirit's Strength sucks, in short, there is no room on the bar and no room in the attributes. Also it's easily stripped. All that being said, I'm not going to get into a discussion of why Spirit's Strength is bad here. It's actually ok in PvE as long as you take an imbagon with you to make up for the armor deficit. - Misery Is Hawt19px 14:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm not saying that the build could be salvaged, but the author is supposed to have the opportunity according to the policies here. I can attest that there was no well, and I'd place a five spot that someone would've had their panties in a wad if it had been removed. So far, I have not received an answer to the adendum question, I only get remarks on the build itself. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 14:56, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Ok, short version on the policy. If the author wants an explanation, Rapta will tell him that Spirit's Strength has been done to death and trashed over and over, that is why it was deleted under WELL. If he wants it restored to his user space, it will be done. If you want it restored to your user space, pretty sure it will happen. If anyone thinks it shouldn't have been deleted, that can be discussed, but I can't see a defence, better would be to make a new build in your user page, then argue why it's good enough to become a vetted build, then put it through vetting. It's spirit of policy over word of policy, the user can get the build back if he wants it and can get an explanation if he wants it, he hasn't been violated in some way, no harm, no foul. I've had a build deleted by Rapta, he is perhaps overly zealous in his deletions if THAT is the issue you want to bring up I don't know exactly who you would talk to, perhaps a post on the AN as you have done, or talk to a Beareaucrat (We'll pretend that's spelt correctly), but at the end of the day, this build would have been deleted anyway and the author can get it back if he wants it. No harm, no foul. - Misery Is Hawt19px 15:11, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Im pretty sure the policy says that builds are not to be deleted immediately. This, apparently, has been violated. And, not just here, but numerous other places (which I cant site cuz theyre deleted). My suggestion is that Rapta wait at least a few hours after a WELL tag has been put on a build in order to comform to policy. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
(EC) Not knowing you very well, I was expecting a flaming session, thanks for being constructive and funny at the same time ;-). My only gripe is that a build is supposed to have a well tag - it didn't. The author is supposed to be notified - he wasn't. If the adendum isn't going to be followed, delete it. It's not cool to yank our chains thinking we won't be walked over by one individual when in fact, that's exactly what happens. It's similar to a dirty cop planting evidence to get a bad person off the streets. The person would've eventually been caught, but he goes about it in a way which breaks the rules. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 15:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
As a note, Rapta didnt break any rules. As an admin, he has admin discretion (aka superwikipowers). But, in most cases, I would advise Rapta to not use this power and follow the other policies that the wiki has instated. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
So you don't believe the adendum was broken...how is it to be interpreted then? Regular users can't delete so it must be talking to admins...right? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 15:32, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
True, but admins are above the law, so to speak. If they feel that deleting something will benefit the wiki, they can delete it. I personally disagree with this idea, but its the way life is. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
So why implement a law which doesn't have to be followed. It's pointless and utter bs. If it's not a valid rule, then it should be deleted. Or better yet, why not allow the wiki to perform how it is designed and let the damn thing be vetted. Once vetted, delete. It just seems extremely pointless to have a site that judges builds based on the insight/experience of all and then circumnavigate all policies to do what you want. Whatever, policy was obviously broken so either do what is right, or not. If you don't, then you've just killed any forms of recourse that this site was set up to have. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's a side of the story it looks like hasn't been talked about: Rapta deleted the build immediately, in violation of the addendum (which is, quite honestly, a guideline, as all policies are to admins). He is, from what I can tell, at fault for that. But has anyone considered that maybe he, y'know, didn't notice the time stamp? We're admins, but we're only human - I've done that sort of thing plenty of times.

If anyone wants a copy of the build code, or an explanation of why it was tagged for WELL, or the talk page, we can get those for you. The only things we can't get are the ratings and the diff links (although we can get you a summary of who made what changes in what order, similar to the history page).

This is not, however, a good place to discuss the administrator policy and whatnot. If you want to talk about that, I point you to my userpage. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 15:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

What's funny, is that I wouldn't have said anything at all, but I had just been to the page about five minutes before it was deleted - there was no well tag. Perhaps it was added by someone in that five minute interval, and if so, I can understand overlooking the timestamp, but that seems highly unlikely since his remark wasn't that it was tagged (after he checked) but rather, it was a dupe and inferior to a warrior primary. Regardless of the situation concerning its deletion, admins, according to the adendum, are supposed to notify authors. If you go to Cheese Eater's page, you'll see that there is nothing there. Seems that not only the timestamp was overlooked, but the step of checking to see if the author was notified was as well. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 15:57, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
There's nothing in the policy that says you need to alert an author when you delete the build for WELL. It's assumed that if the tag's sitting there, they'll notice. (At least, that was the reasoning I used when I wrote up the policy.) Rapta made a mistake, you noticed, you called him on it, and now that the mistake's been noticed by other people, information wanted can be supplied. Is there anything else of import? Only we're kinda flooding his talk. As I said, feel free to take this to my talk if you'd like - Ressmonkey already started a section there. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 16:02, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I was clearing out the PW:WELL category. The build was up for 2 days. Just FYI. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

And again, for the record, Spirit's Strength sucks. It's stupid to try and use policy to keep a crappy build. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:57, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Crippling Anthem Spam

I really don't mind that it got deleted, but I would like to know why my reasoning behind why it didn't violate WELL wasn't sufficient.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 12:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

The reason was that it's inefficient and inferior to a general Cripshot. That was reason enough for the deletion. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
It was getting Trashed anyway. However, on a more unrelated topic but very serious topic, Rapta, you need an archive. I know, it may be hard to acknowledge, but yeah. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 19:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Eh, w/e, but I really don't think "It was getting Trashed anyway," is an acceptable reason at any time :/ if that is the case, why bother having a trash section?.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 21:45, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Symbolic Strike

Do you really not understand why Symbolic Strike is visibly inferior to Mystic Sweep? Blessed LightSnow Bunny 13:34, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

... what? You'll have to be more specific to what you're talking about. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Hes talking bout that D/W thing. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   18:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Linkie. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:16, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh, found it. I never said that Symbolic Strike was better than Mystic Sweep. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:25, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.