Yes, I have placed a LOT of cleanup tags on a LOT of build articles, and it will benifit the community in the long run. If you need assistance in re-formatting or improveing the quality of explinations of your build, please don't hesistate to create a heading, post your name, a link to the build and the concern, and I will help you out with it. If you give me enough to work with I may even go in and finish it up for you. Shireensysop 05:12, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

As Long As You're On

Could you review PvXwiki:Build Master Status Requests? Thanks. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:37, 1 July 2007 (CEST)


Mind explaining what exactly in [[1]] needs cleaning, not quite sure what you're getting at. I thought I made it quite concise. --Ckal Ktak 22:52, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

Not enough Content. Saying cast VoS and attack, isn't a build. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 22:57, 1 July 2007 (CEST)
Improved? Or needs more? --Ckal Ktak 23:13, 1 July 2007 (CEST)


how is it a stub? - Skakid9090 04:46, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

The presentation of the build needs to be better consolidated explination. It mainly needs a better consolodated usage section, so I don't have to read the entire page and piecemail the whole team concept together. You explain nothing of the subtleties of this team unit. Make it easier to read and understand and give it a better 'overview' section without having to bounce all over the place. With team builds you need to be more explanitive as there are a LOT more moving parts than just a standard build. Also explain where it can be used and how to use it in those areas. I appologise if this is aggrivating, but I am cracking down to greatly improve article quality on this site. I've allready placed close to 200+/- stub/cleanup tags today to clear out a lot of the incomplete builds people wanted tested. Shireensysop 04:52, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Oh not at all, I was just wondering. - Skakid9090 04:53, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
Whenever you think it's fine just remove the tag =P - Skakid9090 05:45, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

w/r build

was wondering what needs cleaning up on my build ^^ 1

Your build is higly Chatty, bulitize and condense your paragraph explinations. More information about the subtleties of your build would be appreciated. And try the [skill icon|(Skill Name)]] technique to make your large list of variant skills more recognizable. Shireensysop 05:04, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

checked over it a few times and i think it's up to par now, if it's not please point the way and i'll fix it up, or if it's only a minor thing and it wont consume your time you'd be most welcome to make the change yourself. Ghostun 04:27, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Allright, this is a build wiki, not a monster skill documentation. Simply list how to counter or deal with those monsters without writing a report about them. Take the skill icon marks out for anything that is not part of the W/R build. It is looking much better and your almost there. Shireensysop 04:38, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Thanks for the help :) Ghostun 04:58, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Build:W/Mo Hero Utility

What do you mean by this edit? What needs to be expanded, what more needs to be added? Using the build isn't rocket science. Hero maintains succor on two targets... and the AI does the rest. Do I need to write a paragraph on how the AI usually reacts to certain situations? -Auron 04:56, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Add less tags plox Shireen. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:58, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

I appologise about that one. I was chewing through and trying to flush out the incomplete, poorly formatted builds and saw the extreme spartian style of the page and felt it could be expanded with gear sugestions and area usage and a few variant tweaks to adress specific PvE situations or Hero Battle Schemes. That was my knee jerk reaction and I went with it. If you guys (Syops) disagree with any of the cleanup/stubbing I did in my blanket of the trial and testing area's, please feel free to change em. It won't hurt my feelings. I was just making an effort to give us a solid food hold on quality controll here at the START of the vetting system rather than after it gets rolling. Shireensysop 05:02, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Originally, I didn't want to include anything of that sort on the page (a great many players, including myself, never bother equipping heroes with max weapons/runes/insignia etc, so I didn't add it to the page). Gear choice is listed (standard max sword, max shield - nothing specific is required). If a user wants to deck out his hero with superior vigor and survivor insignias or whatnot, he'll probably do it without me telling him to. -Auron 05:05, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
O: What are you talking about...I need to know if my Heroes need Rago's or not. Stop failing! Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:51, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

No worries. We just havent had many Hiro Builds submitted yet. I made a bad call. Ill keep that build in mind for a minimum standard for Hiro Builds and the like. Shireensysop 05:07, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Regarding "QCJ"

If you're gonna play the role of the QCJ, you gotta start being more precise about what exactly needs to be done. A comment like: "Build needs to be expanded, clarified, and brought up to standard before comming out of stubs and into TRIAL status" which is on the Build:D/any Chilling Striker doesn't actually tell the author what needs to be expanded, in what ways it needs to be expanded, what needs to be clarified, in what ways it needs to be clarified, and, it gives no impression as to what "The Standard" is. I understand why you're doing this, but you can't put the tag on 50 builds and then expect everyone to know what to do. Using the Chilling Striker as an example, please detail what needs to be brought up to code. Use this as an exercise, so that next time you do this, you're better equipped to give a concrete answer. Things like, Builds is too chatty, remove first person, clarify section X, fix spelling, those are concrete things the author can fix. Simply telling them their build is not ship-shape so to speak doesn't really help them at all. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:49, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Will do. That was just for the initial Quality Controll sweep. I am going to be very patient and VERY available to work on the quality of the pages with the authors that come to me. And from this point forward I will be specific about what needs to be taken care of. Does the cleanup template support the bulleting format? Shireensysop 05:53, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

The intial quality controll sweep, I made eddits to approximately 150 builds according my history logs and some guestimate adjustments. So I appologise for not being specific for to each and every one of those builds. Shireensysop 06:02, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

It's not something to necessarily apologize for, but, there have been a couple of complaints, and there have been a bunch of authors who think there build has been ready when suddenly: BAM!... not up to code. Just try to be more specific in the future. Also, I don't think the template supports bulleting, but you could make it. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:07, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Got a 'teach me how to code a template' page floating around? Shireensysop 06:08, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Let me see if I can make it work. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:10, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
Try this template: Template:Cleanup2. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:12, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

As far as a website that explains how the work... try

See if that clears it up :D

Thanks for the link sneaky. Defiants Cleanup2 format has really helped out in placing appropriate cleanup tags. Shireensysop 01:28, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Regarding Build:N/D Suicide Point Taker

I reverted your edit moving it to Trial from Testing since current policy states that it is the prerogative of the author whether or not he or she wants their build in Trial at any point. For more info, see PvXwiki:Editing Builds. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:10, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Damage Reductor Paragon

[2] what`s wrong with that? You could at least point it out on talk page -_-. --DragonLord 13:41, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Let`s see:

   * Emphasis on 3rd person perspective in word usage (make it less personal)

I`m not native english so sorry, but playing in this all small gramatical games is just too hard for me. Build is written well enough to understand it, the only thing I see what can be done is pointing the text rather than making sentences.

   * Bulletize and condense usage, along with adding a few more usage points if possible

The build itself its quite easy (yet powerful) and, well, spaming skills its only my advice. You cannot target Allies when casting 2 main damage reductors, same with 2 e-management skills, the 2 other skills are desribed (tank/melee, target taking damage), the Elite don`t need special discription either (simple using it when it recharges is enough, using it "wisely" like Heal Party isn`t possible due to time take between casting + using a skill by ally). Saying "res fallen teammates" its just too stupid, first (well, lets say third) quest in pre-searing teach you that, not to mention if you don`t know use of resurrection, stop playing this game (or play tutorial once more). This is PvE build, even not farm one, no special tactic is needed for it, no weapon switching etc.

   * Gear should be a simple list of runes and insignias

It isn`t? You got 2 possible insignias (no, didn`t tested both, I don`t have enough money nor time to play in that, not to mention both will work and taking one version depends on what Paragon will require in other builds that player wants to use) and best spear for that build, the "abc of writing" clearly describes that runes shouldn`t be written there if they are in skill bar above (they are).

   * Try using template:Skill Icon to make the page more visually pleasing

Don`t know how to use it, never seen on other pages. Or maybe it is the small icons + link of skills rather that their names? Then it`s stupid imo, names are better and more clear.

   * Counters need to be simplified and adjusted to more commonly used phrases. See favored builds for examples.

Kiting, adrenaline denial are common used (well, energy denial is more, but adrenal version of it exist and its used, also, that "adrenal denial" was only a typo). Don`t know how to say "blindness" or "blocking" in other way. Anti-shout skills are also very clear to me. Links to gwwiki can be added (all are working), but can`t see nothing more to improve here. --DragonLord 18:35, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

I am going to work on your build, so perhaps you can see (for future submissions) what it is I am talking about. Shireensysop 19:11, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

I dived in and fixed a lot of it. As soon as I can (or you can) figure out how to fix the skill icons for the shouts, your build will be ready to go to Trial or Testing if you feel it is ready. Shireensysop 19:48, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

The problem with the shouts is probably the same as this. I suggest to avoid using skill icons for shouts and use 'Optional' in the main skill bar until PvXcode is fixed. Then the article should be good enough. – HHHIPPOsysop› 19:57, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Has nothing to do with the skill bar, but rather ther skill icon template. Skill bar works just fine with the way the BB code works it (no quotes). Shireensysop 20:00, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Its ok I think, only 2 small notes: - runes of vitae aren`t needed, as well as (forget name) +2energy, its completly player`s choice which one he/she prefers - Variants list now Focus Anger as possible change for Song, and Save Yourselves as replacement for WY but thats not exactly true. Taking only FA its waste of skill as burning can be kept continously with standard adrenaline gain. Taking only SY is not wise either, it can not be kept often enough + it cripple e-management w/o FA. These two skills must be paired to work efficiently. It should be somehow fixed. For rest - thank you, except this above its ready for Testing I think :) --DragonLord 20:33, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Edit: Energizing Finale also isn`t good choice for replacing elite, there`s just not enough energy to efficiently use 3 echoes, EF can only go for Finale of Restioration --DragonLord 20:44, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Then change it, I am NOT here to tell you how to make your build (mechanics and stuff). I honestly don't care for dervish builds. teak and fix it to your hearts content. All I was worries about was the formatting and presentation, which we have corrected. Just maintain at least that level of quality and I won't be bothering you with a clean tag again. As for the skill errors, sorry, I thought thats what you meant. The build is yours, not mine. Thanks for understanding and good luck with the vetting. Shireensysop 20:47, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Build Stub

As defiant elements said what exactly do you want done to the build i created? See Here. Metal enchantment 19:09, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Your has reached minimum standards of quality. Cleanup tag has been removed. You are welcome to come out of stubs and into Trial or Testing when you feel ready. Shireensysop 19:11, 2 July 2007 (CEST)


Why is it in stubs? I made it a while ago and I think it's ready for voting. Dark Morphon 19:29, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Rodgort's Inturruption

Is an unregistered user's thing, shouldn't be where you moved it. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 20:20, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Sorry, I saw the IP, then I saw that he had made an eddit, so I pushed it to his user space making an assumption that he created the page while not logged in. My bust. I've been making a lot of minor mistakes lately. I must be loosing my mind. Shireensysop 20:35, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Rodgorts Interruption

I didn't make that article. If you check the history, it was an anonymous user. Please get that vandalism out of my namespace. Thank you in advance! --Mgrinshpon (C/T) 20:22, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Build:N/any Ravenous Spiker

Any chance you could explain more specifically what needs to be changed? Thanks in advance --Sneakysmith12 20:33, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Thanks again :D--Sneakysmith12 00:36, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Build:R/E Counjure Burning Arrows

Hi Shireen,

Thx for the comments to help get my build out of the stubs and into the trial :)

I just noticed however that I have spelt Conjure wrong in my title lol, is there anyway to fix this?


Allright, it has been moved. No worried, just doing my job. Shireensysop 22:51, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

If you want

Can you please tell me if this build is now ok?> and can u fix what ever is left to do? i think ive done most of it


This is getting out of hand, Shireen. Stop adding all the tags, or at least get another administrator's consent... Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:24, 2 July 2007 (CEST)


ok ill try some more situations for the build and ill work on expanding it

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