User talk:Skakid9090/Archive 1

ATTENTION
If you've come to bitch or complain at me, be aware I have neither the time, patience, or desire to argue back. So keep it off. - Skakid9090 23:02, 27 April 2007 (CEST)

And dont tell me what to do.......

DoA
Hm, may invite you for some DoA sometime :D. Readem (talk *contribs ) 01:00, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * sure thing, always looking for good players (i pugged to LB8, my limit for pugs has ended xD ) - Skakid9090 01:07, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

FYI ;)
The Unfavored Builds section is most likely going to be deleted. Fixing them is likely a waste of time ;). Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 05:42, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Oh damn. Lol. - Skakid9090 13:57, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

hehe
Don't think we need to add 0 attributes dude ;p. Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 01:47, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
 * looks funny tho eh? - Skakid9090 01:48, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
 * A litte, see my response. ;) Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 01:49, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

Lady
Believe it or not, I was RAing one day when I came across some body running a build very similiar to that. I wish I had a screenie, it was a serious "WTF?" moment. :-) - <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    10:13, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

help the anon making skill pages... i type slow on psp <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk···contributions) 23:06, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
 * hehe im on it - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 23:06, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Edit Summary
(New page: ) Edit conflict much? ;-) - <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    23:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
 * hehehe - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 23:08, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

How to Treat a Lady
Replace Shove with Tease, replace "Help Me!" with Symbolic Posture, and replace "Brace Yourself!" with Mighty Blow. <font color="Orange">Misfate  23:10, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Wanted to Make Sure You Got the Message
Add this template to possibly outdated builds. Either will work, it doesn't matter, but since we have the template anyway and it seems to fit... *Defiant Elements*  +talk  01:00, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Oops... oh well, mine will work for now ^_^ - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 01:00, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks
Thanks for the advice, I'm leaving my next, rather long, comment as my last on his talk. But yeah, the builds should get a delete tag on them, they suck so bad! <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 17:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Paintballfreak13
Just thought you might like to know, I banned him for 3 days. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  00:44, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
 * just can't convince some... *sigh* - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 00:44, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
 * If he'd stopped, I wouldn't have vandalized him, but when you warn them and they still go and vandalize, well... [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]] *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:47, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
 * who knows, maybe he'll come back and be an active contributor /Dubiety - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 00:48, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
 * First of all, nice use of my new word of the day :). Seriously though, it does happen, but only very occasionally.  S Penumbra (if you know who that is) had a lot of issues early on on GuildWiki, but, as far as I know, he still contributes without any issues.  Still though, you are right, the recidivism rate of vandals is VERY high.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:52, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
 * *googles recidivism* yeah you're right =P - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 00:55, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Hehehe, maybe I need to make recidivism a Word of the Day ;). [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:56, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, you should. *Doesn't feel like googling* [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 03:36, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Fyi
The Armor nerf, is really not that bad. You see, Gaile has explained that it is not at all nerfing armor. They are just getting rid of the obnoxious numbers. For example, 20-40 is a huge difference. 120-140 has a minimal difference. That is what the nerf did. Also, +25 stacking armor. Spells such as kinetic, as long as they are applied first, still give the benefit of +80. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 16:48, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
 * yeah, i've tried to tank aatxes before and you need kinetic + AoE + SFA... i'll test later and take you word for it. - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 16:50, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Lolz Skakid!
You say you dont have time to reply bad comments?

Well, you said to me "Explain why Sprint is better than Dash, well, you cant!" A quite n00bish comment since u gave me NO chance to explain. Also, you edited my build by yourself. Thats why I deleted your god damn comment. You want it back? Sure, ill restore it!
 * English please. - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 07:22, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

More specification needed
On your delete tags, can you put a little more information than just 'Earth Tank'. Let me know the technical reason why you feel a build should be deleted (is it a duplicate? If so, a duplicate to what build.  Poor damage output?  Lack of Interupts? Zero E-Management, Poor survivability?)  It makes things easier to understand and sounding less like a personal attack. I usually try to just clean up language usage (which you didn't use), but in this case, I am not sure how an earth tank for PvE is a bad thing. And if it is lacking poor damage, can you sugest to the build author a method of improving his damage output without turning it into a copy cat of an allready existing build? I feel your one of a handfull of people that simply say "Yes!" or "No, that sucks" without trying to help improve the understanding of the author. Thanks for the time. <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen sysop  07:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT)- p.s. I will delete that buid here in a few days if no improvements are made. Thanks again.
 * well we have like 8 zillion unfavored earth tanks I just figured =P - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 07:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * But those new guys Don't know that. Give a redirect and make a note on the discussion page why they don't work.  If I can get everyone moving towards that direction. Ill stop getting complaints on IM that the wiki is filled with zelous, aragont build noobs.  <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen  sysop  07:57, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Well Shireen his reasoning is quite simple indeed...that build sucks. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 07:59, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

But the author (for whom the tag is placed) does not know that his build sucks that badly. I would feel a better explination is needed without using the words "Sucks, Noob, crappy," etc. is needed. Like what I placed there was, Lack of damage, does not pose a significant threat on the battlefied, can be easily kited away from  - That is an appropriate delete tag. It tells why, rather than just "It's sub standard" or "PVX Well, it sucks! BEGONE!". Can you see my point? <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen sysop  08:31, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Meh, I have more the "It sucks, begone! Now put on my Wizard hat, Aight." attitude. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 08:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry about that
Make the wrong sequence of button mashes. The build has been deleted and I have plans to put that smaller skill bar under another build as a merge variant. <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen sysop  14:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Those were actually supposed to be tagged...
I was considering moving those builds completely for a while... 75.162.242.246 16:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * No clue who you are or what you're talkin about =P. do tell =) - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 16:57, 25 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Guess? 75.162.242.246 19:33, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

One vote not two, fail less pls
Please decide if you are neutral or in favor of the Blastedt nomination. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 15:51, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I have multiple personalities maybe? - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 º_o 15:52, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Seriously, you have three votes on that page. I realize that the nomination wasn't terribly serious, but, you still can't do that. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]] *Defiant Elements*   +talk  17:49, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Colonary Aperture
I've warned Metal Enchantment about his actions here on the wiki. Please try to keep a civil tongue especially when dealing with new users, even if they deserve it. Thanks in advance. - <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    05:34, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah yeah okay I'll try harder. - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 º_o 05:42, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism
I want to apoligize for my unexcusable behaviour. I will try to improve the wiki the best that I can. Metal enchantment 06:39, 1 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Well I'm glad that you've changed your ways =). welcome to the wiki mate - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 º_o 06:39, 1 July 2007 (CEST)


 * You know, the recidivism rate among vandals is so incredibly high that it's always a pleasant surprise when things work out. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  06:41, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

RV Lightning Hammer
I have already gone over this with DE, and many others. The Build sucks. Outdated. Bad synergy. Inferior to countless Builds. Once more...need I go on? <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 00:15, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeah but you gotta have a consensis on the talk page. talkin about it in secret then archivin the build does nothing. send it back to untested if you think it needs a re-vote. - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 º_o 00:17, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Which part did you not get? The inferior to countless Builds, or bad synergy part? It is not a new fact that this Build is old and outdated. That was even being discussed on Guild Wiki... <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 00:20, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Thats not the point, there was your viability check on the talk page then it was archived. you have to get more people to agree publically to change it. im with your change really but i have to argue the build does have some strong points as an RA build. - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 º_o 00:22, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
 * The anything works in PvE, applies to RA. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 00:26, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
 * ok, but dont archive a build w/o at least 3 people agreeing with you... it's not fair to do stuff like that. i'll move to untested. - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 º_o 00:27, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
 * RA builds are favored upon effciency, sure you can get a glad point as a flare spammer but its not gonna be easy or fast. - <font color="Black">Skakid9090 º_o 00:32, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Actually, it took me 20 mintues O.o but that was a fluke :p. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 00:42, 2 July 2007 (CEST)