FANDOM

Little emo kid welcome for chaos Hey, War Pig5, welcome to PvX!

Take a look at our new user guide for some quick explanations of policies and
tips for editing and creating builds.

If you have any further questions feel free to contact me or any administrator.
Best of luck and happy editing ^_______^

Chaos

Welcome to PvXwiki! ViYsig5Victoryisyours (talk/RfA) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks!--War Pig5 14:21, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Build:Team HM Ursan Team

...has been moved to Build:Team - HM Ursan Team as per PvX:NAME.¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 13:01, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Build:Team - Barbed Condiway

...has been moved to Build:Team - HB Barbed Capway as per PvX:NAME. --War Pig5 22:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Makeshift Favorites List

coming soon

RV Shock Axe

<, as in from first to next. Thanks though. --Readem 01:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

I stand by that. It should be > as an arrow pointing from the first to the next. This would be consistent with other articles.--War Pig5 01:13, 20 February 2008 (EST)
Meh, I probably had calc HW the day I rewrote it. < as for greater than, or leading to. You can change it however, just make the >'s look a bit more like arrows =). --Readem 01:15, 20 February 2008 (EST)
Forgive me for the technicality, but < means "less than." I've never seen the < symbol used to mean "leading to" before. I'm changing it to → which has been used in other build articles, example: Build:A/D_Fox's_Promise_Scythe. Thanks for the implicit pledge not to revert again. I'm going to do my best to make all articles consistent; perhaps this symbol should be mentioned in the Usage section of the build template. --War Pig5 02:20, 20 February 2008 (EST)

why is there a 5 after ur name, it sounds cooler without the 5 MuffinPWNAGEMUFFIN crabs 20:15, 30 November 2008 (EST)

5 represents an S because "War Pigs" (A Black Sabbath song) was taken on other sites, and I want to have the same name on many sites.--War_Pig5 21:10, 30 November 2008 (EST)

build on userpage

your healer has too many heals, and orison is awful Tai sig Image 78 06:27, 7 January 2009

Assuming you mean the AB RoJway healer. Agreed. It was not my choice, but that of the guildy who helped me test the build. Changed it to Heal Other. I welcome your other suggestions.--War_Pig5 06:56, 7 January 2009 (EST)
heal other is even worse tbh Tai sig Image 78 06:59, 7 January 2009
Oh, I see, its worse than awful, that's why its in umpteen great PvP builds... actually, also agreed... HO is good against spikes that aren't on the healer, which are FTL anyway. Changed to Dark Escape which I'm sure you will think is even worse than heal other. I repeat: I welcome your suggestions:-)--War_Pig5 07:34, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Heal other sucks. Just letting you know! --Crow 16:43, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

You should make a sandbox. «Novii« 01:38, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

What should I put in it?--War_Pig5 06:31, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
Everything that is on your user page. http://pvx.wikia.com/wiki/User:War_Pig5/Sandbox gogo. Mason717 sig Mason717 eats shit 06:58, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
That felt like a waste of my time... but I did it as a xmas present to PvX. Merry xmas!!!--War_Pig5 07:28, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you too ^^ ---Chaos- (moo) -- 17:25, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

Abuse it? D: --Chaos? -- 18:34, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

A lot of my user page stuff was moved to sandbox at the request of people above. Is there a rule against something I'm doing? If so, blame the people who told me to do this :0 --War_Pig5 18:47, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Not really, people were just suggesting anyways. Constant watchlits/recent changes pings from your userpage isn't very cool though. --Chaos? -- 18:51, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
I gather you see a lot of my user page on the recent changes list, and I can imagine your annoyance with that. I'll try to minimize it in the future. But what's this about watchlist? My user page is on your watchlist??? 0.o--War_Pig5 19:13, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Everything I edit is on my watchlist ;o Helps me maintain the wiki and do overall stalking. --Chaos? -- 07:16, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

2,863 pages on your watchlist, not counting talk pages. --Chaos? -- 07:16, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have 2,863 pages on my watchlist. Please explain what the watchlist problem is, I honestly don't know. --War_Pig5 07:30, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
 ;o I hate skipping pages on my watchlist because they're absolutely useless. But never mind that. If you want to please folks, create a subpage for your builds. If not, then leave it ;p --Chaos? -- 08:55, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Oh - you have my user page on your watchlist and 2,862 other pages, too? I had no idea that people were watching my userpage. I recommend that anyone doing so unwatch it immediately. --War_Pig5 09:33, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I can't choose to watch your talk but not your userpage. --Chaos? -- 10:42, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Users may have trouble viewing really long pages, that's really the strongest case for separating pages up. It is particularly an issue because you have to go through that huge page to get to get to your talk page. - AthrunFeya Lau bfly - 11:04, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

real vetting meta proposal

I thought I'd bring this onto your talk page just to make it clear =p.

You seem to be under the impression that users wouldn't be getting any say in "what is/isn't meta". I just wanted to say this isn't the case, those builds will be put there (or not) by what the community decides.

the "MC" position is there purely for when the community can't decide (and if they did start doing otherwise ("no you're bad, this is emta STFU" etc.) they'd be banned and probably no long an MC).

I hope that clears this up for you =). ~ PheNaxKian talk 23:19, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not under that impression. The proposal includes removing the Rating process from builds tagged "meta." This removes every user's right to rate the effectiveness of every meta build. This is a terrible idea and I'm letting everyone know. --War_Pig5 23:34, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
can you not cede that if its in the metagame then its a good build? we're a site based around storing builds, not about letting people express their opinions about builds (which we don't discourage, its just not why we're here). Gringo 23:38, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Lets say I cede that meta builds are good enough to be stored here. A policy to store all meta builds can be proposed. However, I see no reason why only nonmeta builds should be categorized into "good" and "great" categories. Why should this website's operators go though a lot of trouble to take away all users' right categorize meta builds into "good" and "great" categories? --War_Pig5 00:12, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Because as soon as something is tagged "Meta" it's voted into great. You're kind of making a point, but you don't show a true understanding of how the site works. --Chaos? -- 09:54, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
False; builds marked meta have been voted into in Good. I suggest that you focus on learning to show that you know how the site works. I understand perfectly how the site works. --War_Pig5 17:53, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
actually, he was right. see here and here I checkd last night, and I think all except one (maybe two) were in great. ~ PheNaxKian talk 17:55, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
As you just said, "all except one (maybe two) were in great". That means that you have found that Chaos was wrong. I suggest that you focus on learning to show that you know what "right" means.--War_Pig5 18:04, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
yeh, but those builds either had questionable votes on them, or haven't been meta for a while as far as I know. ~ PheNaxKian talk 19:26, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
I was well aware of the fact that there have been meta builds in "good", I cba checking, but iirc those builds have been bad shitter builds, some sway's and dat, or sth --Chaos? -- 21:57, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
"Why should this website's operators go though a lot of trouble to take away all users' right categorize meta builds into "good" and "great" categories?"
It isn't a lot of trouble, believe me. The new system will be far less trouble, and it takes barely any work to get from here to there.
Secondly... right? What right? PvX has no legal documents guaranteeing anyone the right to life, liberty and voting on builds. We used a terrible voting system on GWiki, we modified it heavily (and even created some wiki extensions) to continue voting on PvX, but the goal of the voting is to show how good the build is, not to let people feel warm and cuddly. Very few users on this site are any good at GvG, so frankly, listening to them is a waste of time. The most they do is bandwagon on their friend's votes, none of them having ever actually played the build at any competitive level, and the build gets either "great"ed or "well"ed based on the ring leader's original vote.
tl;dr this meta tagging system for gvg/ha builds is far superior to voting in every way possible (including a drama standpoint), so we're using it. i'd write more but my friend is drunk off his ass and needs a ride home, might add to this later. -Auron 09:45, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to user rights on the website. Not some sort of legal right! I thought people could figure this out from the context (this being a website, not a law firm). I thought wrong. I also think that you have made up your mind on this proposal so further discussion on my talk page is not needed. --War_Pig5 00:32, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.