This HTML5 document contains 6 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdfs:label

PvXwiki talk:Admin noticeboard

rdfs:comment

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ __TOC__ "Note that this is not a talk page and that the respective moderators of each section reserve the right to remove non-administrative comments without discussion." Could it get boldened? People are thick. ---Chaos- 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

n4:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n5: n7: n8:

n6:abstract

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ __TOC__ "Note that this is not a talk page and that the respective moderators of each section reserve the right to remove non-administrative comments without discussion." Could it get boldened? People are thick. ---Chaos- 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC) done. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Not being able to differentiate between discussion and comments to admins is also a problem. What can we do about this? Athrun Feya 23:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC) You can make your comments on the build talk page. The admin noticeboard is for notification only. Image:Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Done and done, so why was my 'notification' just labelled "qqing" and ignored? Athrun Feya 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC) If you wish to contest a vote removal, first, be the person who's vote was removed, second, talk to the person who removed it. Image:Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Can't see anything about it in the policies, but fine, it's resolved. Someone finally saw sense Athrun Feya 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Check the policies again [1] Image:KJ needed a new sig....sig.png 00:06, 4 March 2009 Yeah, a lot of things about initial vote removal but nothing about disagreeing to a removal. Athrun Feya 00:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reading is good: The weighting of the ratings on the different criteria is defined by this policy. Voters who don't agree with the current weighting should address that on the policy's talk page. It is not admissible to give false ratings on individual criteria in order to circumvent the weighting scheme. If a user feels that an unwarranted rating has been given to a build, he or she may contact the voter in question and ask them to explain or elaborate their rating on the build's discussion page. Note that all discussion about votes and their reasons takes place on the build's discussion page, not on the voter's talk page. However, a short message on the voter's talk page in order to draw his attention on the discussion is acceptable. Please respect NPA at all times. Mentioned twice. Image:KJ needed a new sig....sig.png 00:33, 4 March 2009 But these are both to do with disagreeing with current votes on a build, not one that has already been removed unfairly. I'm still nonethewiser. Athrun Feya 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC) It's spelled none-the-wiser and I'm not surprised tbh. If nothing else, the policy does recommend this: apply common sense when voting. That could probably be transposed to say, use common sense when disputing vote removal Image:KJ needed a new sig....sig.png 00:48, 4 March 2009 So, applying to this situations, why is bringing something that is believe to be wrong to the attention of admins via the admin noticeboard not common sense? Athrun Feya 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) which do you think would be faster? Contacting an admin on his talk page (which sends them a message or at least places a notification box on their page) or putting it on the AN? Plus, I don't think you're supposed to dispute votes on the AN. You're supposed to re-vote giving better reasoning for your vote and if it's removed again you contact the admin/bm that removed it. Sounds like common sense to me....but I could always be wrong --Image:KJ needed a new sig....sig.png 01:35, 4 March 2009 01:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "Vote removal" is considered "voting" for these kinds of purposes, it is also covered by policies such as PvX:1RV. Image:Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 08:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC) How do you remove a WELL'd tag? It was placed on build for wrong reasons. Build:Mo/R Symbolic Bonder There is no bonder build that can compare to this on this wiki. The WELL'd tag said that there is a "half dozen" so 6 builds that are better. I can't even find 6 bonding builds. This is the best group bonder build on wiki. Not sure why Anon put a WELL tag on it without any disscussion. I am sure he had reasons just hope they weren't personal, and if he could explain why instead of embellishing. Can I just remove it myself?Image:Xtreme Hunter.png 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC) You're not allowed to remove those tags from your own build, because the authors (like in this case) are blind to the bad features of their build. ---Chaos- 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Show me the light then...I am blind so make me see. Why is everygthing so hush hush? Tell me why then instead of "not being bothered". Educate me then instead of WELLing it to get it out of the way.Image:Xtreme Hunter.png 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Don't expect to get much out of Chaos... as for the WHY, that should be (and largely has been) done on the build's discussion page. Image:Bulldozer1.jpg Captain Bulldozer Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC) It's common knowledge bonder builds pretty much suck in general pve now--Relyk 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC) And we've told you extensively why it's bad. LifeImage:WikiLOD7.gif 15:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I will not comment here on this matter any more. Go to Build talk:Mo/R Symbolic Bonder!!!Image:Xtreme Hunter.png 16:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Aww, cute. When the majority of people on PvX start to be serious and reasonable I'm out. For once when I avoid arguing and tell the guy to post on the AN he starts grudging. ---Chaos- 19:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)