E/Me Auspicious Renewal (talk · rate)[]
Morten's vote makes no sense, as there are no other renewal nukers. — Skakid9090 22:02, 20 September 2007 (CEST)
- The one that reads "Renewal Nuker" is a renewal nuker. — Rapta
(talk|contribs) 22:18, 20 September 2007 (CEST)
- Oops, none that aren't archived. — Skakid9090 22:21, 20 September 2007 (CEST)
W/Rt AoE Splinter (talk · rate)[]
Coloneh's vote states that the build lacks a self-heal. But, the build has Lion's Comfort which is obviously self-heal. Additionally, the vote says "Effective," but the rating in Effectiveness is a 1 which seems contradictory. 
*Defiant Elements* +talk 04:52, 21 September 2007 (CEST)
- Vote removed. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 05:11, 21 September 2007 (CEST)
Team - Barrage/Pet (talk · rate)[]
Author's last three edits have been reversions to his own previous revision (or close to such). I have concerns about PvX:OWN. Evidence: [1] [2] [3] -- Armond Warblade
{{sysop}} 05:53, 21 September 2007 (CEST)
Team_-_TA_Dervish-way (talk · rate)[]
Sworsman Jake. Vote on the build when it was still in trial, besides completly lack understanding what mysticism abuse and smiter is. Swiftslash \\ 
(contributions *warrior guide) 16:47, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
N/E_Toxic_Bile (talk · rate)[]
I'm not sure about this, but I see 4 votes from no or almost no contribution users along with one 5-5-5 that votes on the optional build. Swiftslash \\ (contributions *warrior guide) 15:02, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
- [4] here Blay even "admits" being Swordsman Jake. Swiftslash \\
(contributions *warrior guide) 15:10, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
A/D_Grenth's_Fang (talk · rate)[]
The vote by kyle. proabably invalid because of contributions, but also sorta makes no sense and shows moderate lack of game knowledge. req?
18:13, 27 September 2007 (CEST)
- He's talking about the recarge on Golden Lotus. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 18:29, 27 September 2007 (CEST)
- Indeed, all i looked at was the vote, kinda. But seriously we should have a rule about bad grammar and stuff in votes... its annoying! 18:30, 27 September 2007 (CEST)
- No more so than a rule for normal conversation... I'll agree it's very annoying, but what are we going to do about it? How do we plan to enforce it? "Oh, sorry, your vote made a lot of points no one else thought of, but it's removed because you made a typo." -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 18:43, 27 September 2007 (CEST)
- Typo would be exaagerating it, but i'm sure we could find a few that practically are a different language they are so badly written. 18:50, 27 September 2007 (CEST)
- Doesn't mean they're not entitled to their opinion. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 19:52, 27 September 2007 (CEST)
- Doesn't mean they're not entitled to their opinion. -- Armond Warblade
- Typo would be exaagerating it, but i'm sure we could find a few that practically are a different language they are so badly written.
- No more so than a rule for normal conversation... I'll agree it's very annoying, but what are we going to do about it? How do we plan to enforce it? "Oh, sorry, your vote made a lot of points no one else thought of, but it's removed because you made a typo." -- Armond Warblade
- Indeed, all i looked at was the vote, kinda. But seriously we should have a rule about bad grammar and stuff in votes... its annoying!
D/Me_UW_solo (talk · rate)[]
Sockpuppetry me thinks. Swiftslash \\ (contributions *warrior guide) 03:14, 26 September 2007 (CEST)
- I'm pretty sure those had been checked and did not match up. Although that does not rule out being friends. єяøהħ 14:32, 26 September 2007 (CEST)
A/any SoS Spike Assassin (talk · rate)[]
This build strongly need revision of votes... Talkin about vote of Champion, Rapta, Skakid9090, Krowman and maybe more... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taan (contribs) .
- And, why? Skak's vote should be restored, I'll be restoring my own. Everyone who voted that build down is absolutely in the right. That build uses one skill to disable all its skills, another to disable all its spells. It's as useless as a practice target. It's sole purpose (SoS) is easily countered by the most common form of hex removal since GW's inception (Veil). So, one skill trumps the entire build, and thus the character slot you wasted to bring it. In TA, teams (read: good ones) bring off-monk healing/support, so having a minimally-useless is not an insurmountable problem, and it certainly does less harm to the other team than it does to your own. Just use knock-lock, then you at least get some damage, DW, etc out of the deal, while still being able to do something with your character. 0-0-0 isn't only for total failures, 5-5-5s aren't reserved for only GW's greatest builds. - Krowman {{sysop}} 21:24, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- That 0-0-0 and 5-5-5 thing was discussed at one point. I recall that 0's were for total failurs and 5's were for über epic. That is one of the reasons you have to get a 2.5 before you are even considered for the "other" range. єяøהħ 21:29, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- (Conflict)It is a working build. How can you say it doesn't work AT ALL? How common is Veil in HB or RA? Monks arent even very common in RA. It def. works, so I will remove again... and, does this count as RV1? We really need to clarify that. ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 21:30, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- Yes, on both of you I think? Or at least if Krowman re-adds after your second removal it will be. єяøהħ 21:33, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- Link? A failure is a failure, whether it's a 49.5% failure or a 0% failure. Each one will get deleted. - Krowman {{sysop}} 21:36, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- Monks aren't common? They're as common as any other prof, it is the absence of the Monk that is simply more noticeable than, say, the absence of a Ranger. Veil is common everywhere, because it allows for pre-Veiling, hex removal as fast as you can double-click (fastest in the game), and the recharge is win (don't even compare to RH, it is too vulnerable to interruption, which HV coincidentally isn't). Keep removing the low scores and you're reinforcing a broken system. - Krowman {{sysop}} 21:36, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- Krow, the thing is, if you think a build fails about 50%, but you mark it as 100% fail, then that offsets the people who only think it fails 45%, 35% and even 20%. A relatively successful build's rating can be completely distorted by a single vote of 100% fail rather than 50% fail. So if you believe its 50% fail and not 100%, vote so. Idk, it's hard to describe. (ps, It's also a terrible blow to author to get a strait 000 when the build works decently.) єяøהħ 21:40, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- Well, all but one of the build's skills are disabled (by the build itself). That's pretty near to total failure. The one skill that is still usable is countered by one of the most common and prevalent skills in the game. That's fail. Tbh, we're here to document good builds, not to make people feel good about themselves. I'm not trying to be overly mean to any of you guys, but that build is comparable to running a Signet of Midnight Warrior. - Krowman {{sysop}} 21:46, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- Ok, I agree that this build could be justly given a 0-0-0, however I have seen some builds that I could care to disagree. єяøהħ 22:18, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- Krowman's vote should be valid providing he mentions the total shutdown of self. єяøהħ 14:58, 25 September 2007 (CEST)
- Although the build is pretty suckage(i actually tested that one not long ago), if used how it says in the usage section, none of the skills will be disabled when you try and use them. If you were to use Deadly Paradox --> SoS, there would still be 3 skills not disabled(Impale, Rez Sig, Sig of Toxic shock, all except rez would be useless in this situation tho). Sorry, I just have a habit of correcting people :p --Teh Uber Pwnzer 01:02, 26 September 2007 (CEST)
- Well, all but one of the build's skills are disabled (by the build itself). That's pretty near to total failure. The one skill that is still usable is countered by one of the most common and prevalent skills in the game. That's fail. Tbh, we're here to document good builds, not to make people feel good about themselves. I'm not trying to be overly mean to any of you guys, but that build is comparable to running a Signet of Midnight Warrior. -
- Stop being low-vote biased, the 5-5-5 wasn't removed and neither me nor krowman have complained. — Skakid9090 21:46, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- This comment lost me. єяøהħ 22:18, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- Krow, the thing is, if you think a build fails about 50%, but you mark it as 100% fail, then that offsets the people who only think it fails 45%, 35% and even 20%. A relatively successful build's rating can be completely distorted by a single vote of 100% fail rather than 50% fail. So if you believe its 50% fail and not 100%, vote so. Idk, it's hard to describe. (ps, It's also a terrible blow to author to get a strait 000 when the build works decently.) єяøהħ 21:40, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- Link? A failure is a failure, whether it's a 49.5% failure or a 0% failure. Each one will get deleted. -
- Yes, on both of you I think? Or at least if Krowman re-adds after your second removal it will be. єяøהħ 21:33, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- (Conflict)It is a working build. How can you say it doesn't work AT ALL? How common is Veil in HB or RA? Monks arent even very common in RA. It def. works, so I will remove again... and, does this count as RV1? We really need to clarify that. ~~
- That 0-0-0 and 5-5-5 thing was discussed at one point. I recall that 0's were for total failurs and 5's were for über epic. That is one of the reasons you have to get a 2.5 before you are even considered for the "other" range. єяøהħ 21:29, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
At least Champions vote should be removed.--Taan
(T/C) 14:04, 25 September 2007 (CEST)
- Champion's right, tbh. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 14:27, 25 September 2007 (CEST)
- SP sin's are kinof a different line.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by єяøהħ (contribs) .
- ? And skakid is right, no complained about the 5-5-5. 16:07, 25 September 2007 (CEST)
- Complain then? єяøהħ 17:42, 25 September 2007 (CEST)
- I think you interpreted differently. i take what skakid said as meaning that rarely is a good vote on a bad build disputed by players who know its a bad build, but very often is a bad vote on a bad build disputed by bad players. the build is bad. 18:45, 25 September 2007 (CEST)
- And I answered. Complain more. єяøהħ 19:11, 25 September 2007 (CEST)
- I think you interpreted differently. i take what skakid said as meaning that rarely is a good vote on a bad build disputed by players who know its a bad build, but very often is a bad vote on a bad build disputed by bad players. the build is bad.
- Complain then? єяøהħ 17:42, 25 September 2007 (CEST)
- ? And skakid is right, no complained about the 5-5-5.
- SP sin's are kinof a different line.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by єяøהħ (contribs) .
Me/N Angorodon's Parasite (talk · rate)[]
Talk page somehow got deleted when somebody moved it. Can it be be restored? It would be either Build_talk:Me/Any Test Build or Build_talk:Mo/Any Test Build. --Teh Uber Pwnzer 02:32, 22 September 2007 (CEST)
- Looking through the histories/deletion logs, here's what appears to have happened to the talk page:
- The build was moved to Build:Me/Any Test Build by Slay at 11:26. The talk page went with it.
- Slay then moved the build to Build:Mo/Any Test Build at 11:30. The talk page went with it.
- At 12:46, Eronth moved Build:Mo/Any Test Build back to Build:Me/N Angorodon's Parasite.
- At 12:47, Eronth deleted Build talk:Me/Any Test Build, which just contained a redirect.
- Also at 12:47, Eronth deleted Build talk:Mo/Any Test Build. However, the deletion summary was 'page was empty', not 'content was: '#REDIRECT Build talk:Mo/Any Test Build' (and the only contributor was 'Slay')'. This means it's likely that at some point the talk page was blanked.
- At 12:52, Eronth deleted Build talk:Me/N Angorodon's Parasite, which just contained a redirect.
- There is no record in the move log of Build talk:Mo/Any Test Build being moved back to Build talk:Me/N Angorodon's Parasite.
- Shortly before this, there had been several anon ip's vandalizing the page. Slay was also a vandal. Looking in their user contributions, I see no edits made to the talk page, but I'm not sure if they'd show up for a deleted page. --Wizardboy777 04:19, 22 September 2007 (CEST)
- They wouldn't. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:02, 22 September 2007 (CEST)
- Also, looking back at what I found, I'm wondering why the talk page didn't go back when eronth moved the build. There's no record for the talk page (of the Mo/Any) being moved anywhere, but according to the logs, the talk page was deleted after the build was moved. --Wizardboy777 00:38, 23 September 2007 (CEST)
- Well, because of the constant and rapid movements/edits made to the page and the rollbacks and movebacks, I think a lot of the history overwrote itself and pretended not to exsist. It was a bit of a mess and I only had one other non-admin on who helped me out at the time. єяøהħ 21:12, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- Found it, someone (I think a vandal IP) blanked it just before one of the moves. I missed that and thought we were just moving random crap. [5] єяøהħ 21:31, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
- 'The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops".' Aww... I can't see it :( --Wizardboy777(T/C) 23:59, 25 September 2007 (CEST)
- 'The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops".' Aww... I can't see it :( --
- Also, looking back at what I found, I'm wondering why the talk page didn't go back when eronth moved the build. There's no record for the talk page (of the Mo/Any) being moved anywhere, but according to the logs, the talk page was deleted after the build was moved. --Wizardboy777 00:38, 23 September 2007 (CEST)
- They wouldn't.
W/Mo DBS pressure hammer (talk · rate)[]
Vote on a stub. Misfate 06:33, 23 September 2007 (CEST)
- Fixed by Edru. єяøהħ 14:53, 25 September 2007 (CEST)