User talk:Rapta

From GuildWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

test

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6

[edit] RaO Spear

Hey! Here's an idea, I found a lost love, and had some fun, make what you will of it:

Blazing Spear can be changed, of course. Maybe a deepwound, interrupt, or Wild Throw.

Attribs I've used are: BM 11+1+2, Expertise: 6+2, Spear Mastery: 12 Perhaps Spear 11 BM 12, but the diminishing returns makes this perhaps better. Enraged is a lot of pressure, almost constant spikes if coordinated with other players and Blazing Spear, and constant interrupts, etc. It looks pretty good to me. --Silk Weaker

After adrenaline is cahrged up, 3/4 life on an 80 armor before Enraged Lunge recharges (Pet attacks are slightly slow anyway, so it comes after). I think it can be considered a spike, not in the sharp sense, but in the sense that not a lot of healing could go through in the time allowed if coordinated. It's definetly more pressure orientated than the current W/A shadow steppers, but it can do this very often. +80 every 5 seconds, interrups, and +40s for fun is quite a lot. It's not even "faking" spikes, but dealing that amount of damage that every few seconds could easily put monks on thier toes, guessing when the real spikes are coming. --Silk Weaker

I've always kinda liked this one:

Something like that. IMO pet isn't needed. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 23:29, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Those are different aproaches, but the one I listed above is more fore pressure. While not precise at all, pets, they are very useful for pressure, the same reason why Thumpers are great but aren't used for spike orientated builds (the other reason, of course, is because warriors can shadow step and have heals). I did play with the build you have though, but instead of Natural Stride, I had Apply Poison, making it very much like a bow ranger. Anyway, what do you think? Enraged Lunge is VERY generous pressure. It does spike-level (or rather, higher than spike level damage, albeit with only 1 attack whereas others have 2-3 skill chains) damage at pressure-level rate (once per 5 seconds, not to mention other attacks and spears). It's a load of damage in terms of pressure, and, as said before, put monks on their toes. --Silk Weaker 06:34, 17 January 2007 (CST)

It's not about the raw damage. With Cruel Spear, you have deep wound, which can provide an excellent spike when used. Thumpers provide constant pressure through KD as well as Deep Wound. The pet isn't entirely necessary - with Thumpers, they're used because it's required. Since you have them, there's pet skills that are used with them. The only reason you should use a Spear with a ranger would be to spike with Deep Wound while ranged - something you can't do with bows, and to spam Paragon attacks like a normal paragon wouldn't be able to (i.e. Harrier's Toss being 10 Energy). But either way, a Paragon would be able to use it much better than a Ranger can, so there's really no point IMO. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 16:14, 17 January 2007 (CST)

"The pet isn't entirely necessary - with Thumpers, they're used because it's required." Many would disagree. Indeed, Beast Mastery are run on very dangerous levels of mastery nowadays, and not simply "coating". There are several posts on the Guru, in the Guildwiki section in fact, where several experienced poster have commented on the importance of pets in a thuper. You can have a read there, and I've read many similar discussions.

Deepwound, yeah, that is a regrettable loss. I am placing it in the context of pressure and coordinated spikes, however. Usually there are two or more sources of deepwound anyway. The output provided is such that it makes it worth it. I brought it up with you becuase I thought you might be interested, in any case, so I hope you'd try it on some dummies or noobs in RA, or in PvE. The damage is, I insist more than spike worthy, about as painful as Decapitate, except with a spear attack used at the same time and spammed once every five seconds. There isn't a lot of control in it, but pressure is pressure. Constant interrupts and superior damage (Predator's Pounce alone is almost an Executioner's Strike, but spammed) is by no means inferior pressure than Knock Downs. While the latter is very useful, I insist that it depends highly in context. KD is great, but so is dealing 150~ more damage every time a thumper would knock down a target. In any case, I'm just restating my comments above. I wish you'd look at it the way I do, but no worries. =) Have a look at the build which I am using this as a part of if you have the time. --Silk Weaker 11:46, 18 January 2007 (CST)

That's just it. Pets are unreliable to control. Predator's Pounce simply cannot be compared to Executioner's Strike, which is very much a staple of Axe builds. That's very much similar to how Hammer Bash and Crushing Blow are needed in a thumper. The entire reason we have thumpers is to keep up continious pressure through spamming their attacks. The pet only has limited use, especially when they get DP'ed over. If you want raw damage, take a Dervish, not a Spear Ranger with a Pet. Interrupts would be the only thing a Thumper has over a Warrior, since you have constant IAS and Speed boost to fuel Hammer Bash, and the energy to fuel Interrupts, but when you take away the Hammer attacks, it's just not a useful build anymore. Thumpers were created for pressure and high damage through Warrior attacks - KD, Deep Wound, Pressure, etc... Without the hammer, you're losing a lot of that. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 12:12, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Heh, well RaO got nerfed anyway. --Silk Weaker 01:08, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Bastards! — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 01:14, 3 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for all your efforts to get the builds updated to work with the modified templates! I was expecting more free time today to work on it, but something came up at the last minute. And as long as I'm posting here ... when you get a chance, be sure to post over at Build_talk:Main_Page/redesign_templates#Suggested_design_changes on any of the suggested refinements to the tags, or adding additional ones. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:09, 17 January 2007 (CST)

No problem at all. Always glad that I could help. =) — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 20:04, 19 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] D/W Alone With the Reaper

Your comment is valued.. no matter how negative it is to me =) kindly take a look again.. if your opinion still the same, well, i'll just put it up for deletion >_< Drick10 09:27, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Really, that's a flawed concept. Dervishes have so many snares that don't require it to be used as an elite - Harrier's Grasp, Crippling Slash, etc... Without your elite being an actual form or one of the excellent Dervish Elite Scythe attacks, it's not of as much use. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 12:14, 21 January 2007 (CST)

The point is that YAA can be used for many OTHER things than snaring, i'd already knew all other options before i started this build, but i found out the usefulness of YAA outlives the other "mono-snare" skills. Drick10 05:30, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Well you're certainly not making use of it in that build, whatever that "other usefulness" is. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 15:47, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Didnt you read the useage part? anyway, i use YAA because its a great teamplay skill.It can snare spellcasters that are running away,weaken assassins/warriors that are attacking your monk and cripple people that are chasing you(speed buffs seperate them).There always is more than one use for a skill that does two things, and apprently you only looked at my skillbar and made an assumption that my build sucked the moment you saw YAA on a dervish. dont tell me warriors can use it better as its a un-attributed skill, and dervish's Mystic Corruption allows YAA to last longer, thus you are able to apply conditions to more than one target, or repeatedly renew the conditions on a target as long as he doesnt have condition removal.(Mystic Corruption makes conditions last at least 12% longer if its the ONLY enchantment on you (yes i know it isnt much, but that one second frees up recharge time), and if you're "skilled enough" you can switch weapons (with crip of heavy mod) quickly for 20% extra.)Sometimes, it better to think of what other things one skill can do, especially an eilte, and only think of that one thing the skill can do and keep insisting on it(no offense meant anywhere in this post,hope you dont take any) Drick10 06:09, 23 January 2007 (CST)

None taken. =)

I know well what you're trying to accomplish in that build. It's a job that's best left for Warriors, since they can synergize with that skill. That one, on the other hand, won't be nearly as effective as existing builds. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 15:51, 23 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] R/Mo Mending Touch Ranger

This build isn't about a new one. It's about merging 2 extremely similair builds into one article. I don't believe they both require an article of their own. Just like the Build:R/any_General_Interrupter includes 4 extremely similair builds. So could you please remove your deletion tag.--Gobla 06:50, 27 January 2007 (CST)

I disagree. People will look for a cripshot or burning arrow range, not a "mending touch ranger".... — Skuld 07:02, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Golba, you do know that they are used for completely different purposes, right? — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 11:19, 27 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Crazy Man

Hey crazy man,come look at this and give me your opinion. Since you seem to know a thing or two about PvP. Feel free to help clean it up too.

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Build:R/E_Single_Man_Spike

Thanks. --Nightslayer 13:40, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Crazy man? — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 16:46, 28 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Don't have a showhide box for my spoiler tag, eh?

Look again, I got it to work :) —Blastedt — 18:54, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Yeah, I saw. Awesomesauce! — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 18:55, 29 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Socketpuppet?

What on earth is a socketpuppet? It sounds oddly hilarious. :) --FatherOfMir 03:36, 30 January 2007 (CST)

w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry — Skuld 04:04, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Ahh .. thx Skuld. Guess it ain't so funny after all. --FatherOfMir 04:45, 30 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Build:Mo/A Shadow Arts Monk

We get that you disagree with the merge, but attacking the credibility of the author of the page (i.e. "Christ. Writer misunderstands the meaning of a merge." and "Any GvG'er with even the smallest amount of experience will tell you that these builds are not the same"} really is not necessary. Defiant Elements 17:23, 30 January 2007 (CST)

I'm blunt. Those are perfectly valid points. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 17:24, 30 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Sign with four tildes, please.

Sorry but I just LOL'led at that. You have a dry sense of humor, even through all the crap you have to deal with. "Admire thy enemy" as the saying goes... ;) Entropy 23:40, 30 January 2007 (CST)

PS: And, you know every single Unfavored build by heart. Props. Entropy 01:40, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I try my best. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 01:42, 31 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] D/N Plagued Melandru

What makes it a joke; simply because it works? Leave feedback on my user page or the build page please. NecroAngel 10:46, 31 January 2007 (CST)

No, you don't have conditions to plague touch. And leave comments on the bottom of the talk page. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 10:47, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I see your point for deletion (before I even finished, haha; atleast you're timely) but what would you suggest... I have a D/N in the game and it works amazingly well; yet, there are no D/N builds which have made it into tested (which saddens me, haha). If you have any suggestions post them on my user page (yours is too big for me to navigate in my lazy state). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NecroAngel (contribs) 12:55, 31 January 2007.

I didn't add the tag for deletion. And again, just because there isn't a D/N build doesn't mean one should be made. It doesn't suit the purpose, creating a build just for a specific profession or class. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 11:00, 31 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Thanks for the backup.

I appreciate your help on Build talk:P/A Spear of Malice. I was actually expecting a lot of flame. I don't know if you've ever read WoW forums, but I hope for your own sake you have not. At least they show their work instead of just saying "Skill x = n DPS" Doom Music 14:34, 31 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Rapta thinkings

Isnt it weird that the only builds that Rapta thinks shouldnt be in tested is ones that he was way outnumbered in favored votes. Also sometimes he isnt very considerate to the build makers (sometimes is the key word). Just a thought :D--Uagathy101 00:20, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Well, if it's good, then more people will vote for it. Just because it has unfavored votes doesn't give it an excuse to be passed by my judgment. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 09:35, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Isn't it weird that Rapta has voted unfavored on all your builds, Mr. Uagathy101, and then you come here to complain on his talkpage? Just a thought :D Entropy 14:22, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Not all of them, he didnt see like 17 of my builds yet =), but still...--Uagathy101

21:22, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Indent plzkthxbai — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 21:22, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Also Rapta is confused about the reason of all my builds, and he doesnt test them, and therefore shouldnt vote...--Uagathy101

21:25, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Pfft. Me voting = pwnage. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 21:27, 1 February 2007 (CST)

You voting = bad, untested, unexperienced votes--Uagathy101 23:15, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Uh oh, you called Rapta unexperienced. Goodbye =P 24.6.147.36 23:18, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Says the guy who makes a PnH build. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 23:36, 1 February 2007 (CST)

PnH? and to the IP code as a sig...I was saying his votes are unexperienced votes becuase he doesnt test them...Rapta is obviusly experienced in guild wiki--Uagathy101 23:47, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Yeah, PnH what :? ... Rapta doesn't have to test his votes, nor does anyone else. And he's got extensive in-game experience as well. I think that qualifies for "experienced" >.> When you've played a long time you don't have to test some things to know they don't work... 24.6.147.36 23:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)

But my builds he has never seen and never used...and I have been playing GW for 17 months, and I still test every single build i see...--Uagathy101 00:34, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Would you test a Mending Wammo build? Entropy 00:36, 2 February 2007 (CST)

ya i probably would...it wouldn't take me to much trouble just to test one build, and fairly rate it...and mending wammo builds are pretty good actually, espcecially with Dolyak signet and healing hands XD--Uagathy101 01:04, 3 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Haha

I really like your "this user is blunt" userbox. Clever. Would you mind if I used it? If not it's totally cool. :) Misanthropist 12:47, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Feel free to use it, but mention where you got it from before Gem hops on you. =) — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 12:51, 1 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] You're crazy!

Build:P/W ToF Tank is brilliant. I know you're a fan of Warriors for tanking and all, but this build can get the job done, no questions asked. Copious amounts of burning, I've kept an entire large group of Margonites burning for the length of the battle many a time. The single biggest counter is Well of Silence. Doom Music 15:06, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Don't like burning. SF does it well. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 15:07, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I /agree with Rapta, I don't like that build either. And I'm clearly not crazy, so... Entropy 15:09, 1 February 2007 (CST)

You're both nuts. I've tanked using that build for two SF Ele's, and it just boosts their damage since they're dealing 80-100+ fire damage instead of inflicting the burn.

Not all the time though, SF burning lasts enough for a few casts. You're increasing their burning somewhat and reducing redundant energy costs somewhat, but overall the change isn't that great. Entropy 15:36, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Doom Music 15:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Oh wow, thanks for taking Build:P/W ToF Tank out of your "Builds that don't belong in Tested," section. Doom Music 18:14, 2 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

And for taking an interest. Not sure how to set up the guide you proposed - where to put the link, etc.

Also can't figure out why you marked the hero team build unfavored when you state that it is a working starter hero set and it's the only one on the page, but my ego will survive :) Thunden 04:06, 2 February 2007 (CST)Thunden

[edit] So, yeah... (oh, crap)

I'm sorry for bothering you here, and go ahead and delete it if you want, but you were going to contribute something helpful to this build: http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Build:Mo/Me_Generic_Hero_Build

Could you please do that? Keep in mind it's a build for a protection monk that a hero can use. :/ Martialis 11:20, 2 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Removing comment

Please don't remove other peoples comments from talk pages. - BeXoR 12:25, 2 February 2007 (CST)

That wasn't a comment. It was an unnecessary template placement. Placing the troll template on Skuld's talk page was not needed. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 12:26, 2 February 2007 (CST)

It was a comment to remind people not to argue because of repeated inflammatory statements. You are not in a position to deem what is and isn't "needed". And removing other peoples' comments is not meant to be done, for any reason whatsoever. - BeXoR

12:28, 2 February 2007 (CST)

There was at most, one "inflammatory" statement. Anyone is in a position to deem what's right and isn't needed. Everything else was either supporting one side or another. There was no flame war. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 12:30, 2 February 2007 (CST)

I have no direct objection to the use of the troll box - although the placement of it on the page bothered me. By placing it immediately after Sigma's comment, it makes it appear to be a direct reply to him. As such, it can be viewed as an attempt to discourage alternate opinions.

Please treat the use of that template carefully. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:48, 2 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Build:N/E Well Warder (WW)

I have been told to resubmit...or is it what I did not resubmitting? --InfestedHydralisk 18:11, 3 February 2007 (CST)

The old talk has to be kept. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 18:12, 3 February 2007 (CST)

So i only have to add a new talk? --InfestedHydralisk 18:13, 3 February 2007 (CST)

All you need to do after a build is resubmitted, is to put up a new rate-a-build, and tag the old rate-a-build with "(old)". — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 18:16, 3 February 2007 (CST)

8D --InfestedHydralisk 18:20, 3 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] N/Mo Bloodlust

Please exercise more wisdom in dealing with new contributors. If you just browse through the "diffs" of the build you'll see a new user having great difficulty editing the page. He's obviously saving every edit he makes. His build was obviously not ready for voting. You and the others exercised Wiki-bullying. Please do not drive people away with such behavior. I know if this happened to me on my first post here, I would not have been around much longer. --Karlos 06:30, 4 February 2007 (CST)

What happened here, Karlos defending ignorance of Policies? Hmm... — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 13:45, 4 February 2007 (CST)

Quoting 130.58 from Build talk:N/Mo Bloodlust: 1. Policy isn't a game of gotcha. People don't get banned for breaking policy, they get banned for acting like tools. Policy mostly exists to help guide well-meaning editors. The point of 1 RV especially is to diffuse arguments by redirecting them to talk page discussions, not to screw over newbies, the uninformed, or the just plain hasty.

User:Darkness was obviously a) completely new to the wiki, b) still working on that build, c) not malicious in any of his actions. So, instead of trying to help him out you guys: a) slap an unfavoured tag while he's still working on the page, b) threaten him with bans. See where things went wrong? --Dirigible 14:04, 4 February 2007 (CST)

He brings in policy, and forgets some of the most basic build policy of not creating a build that already existed in unfavored? And when I got there, I saw the Untested tag. Therefore, there's nothing against me voting, and, with enough unfavored votes (there was), moving it to such a category. I never threatened him with bans, so I have no idea what you're talking about. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 14:08, 4 February 2007 (CST)

I also fail to see where I played any part in "Wiki Bullying". Teutonic Paladin brought in GW:YAV and forgot to sign, so I brought up the fact that he didn't sign his comment. That's hardly even Wiki-bullying. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 14:12, 4 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] I'd like to Apologize

I was fairly rude to you while stating my opinions based on the Guildwiki's rating/voting policy, so I am sorry for that. I hope this doesn't reflect too poorly on me. But if it does, then I suppose I deserve it. =3 Thank you, have a nice day. Pestilence 21:08, 4 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Thunderbow

On the Build:E/R Thunderbow page, you stuck on an 'unfavored' tag on the 28th of January. However, at that time, there were 9 favored and 9 unfavored votes. The build vetting procedure says there needs to be a difference of three votes, one way or the other. That isn't and hasn't been the case. I understand that you want to keep 'bad' builds off the wiki, but violating procedure doesn't help anyone, especially if you do it according to your own bias. Craw 00:09, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Are you sure it was me who moved it? — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 14:35, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Never mind, it was me. And no, please do not accuse me of breaking rules. This [1] says otherwise. 12 Unfavored, 9 Favored. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 14:37, 6 February 2007 (CST)

And also, like our policy with Vetted builds, unfavored builds stay unfavored until there is a major change made. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 14:39, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Ah, I see why I thought it was 10-9 right now, someone moved their vote and screwed up the numbering instead of striking out and adding to favored --Gimmethegepgun 14:43, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out, Gimme. Craw 15:03, 6 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Impressive

I was watching recent edits. In about 3 minutes, I must have seen you make about a dozen unfavored comments. That cleared out probably 6 builds. If I wasn't too lazy I might have to make you a user-box. Skuld edits quickly, but that was an impressive streak for all unfavored comments. Defiant Elements 23:31, 22 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Build:W/R Primal Interrupter

Your Vote: "How about a sword?"
Response: Disrupting Accuracy: "For 36 seconds, whenever your arrows critical, they also interrupt your target." Defiant Elements 23:42, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Response: Use a Sword. Or just maybe an Axe or Hammer. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 23:42, 22 February 2007 (CST)

The entire point is to use Disrupting Accuracy. Defiant Elements 23:44, 22 February 2007 (CST)

So, how exactly is a sword better? And, better for what? Defiant Elements 23:46, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Damage, tanking, etc... — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 00:40, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Well, if this build was meant to deal significant damage or to tank I would say you are right. But, it's meant to interrupt so.... Defiant Elements 00:42, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Therefore, it's useless. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 00:42, 23 February 2007 (CST)

If you want Disrupting Accuracy to interrupt with almost if not all shots try a different profession besides Warrior. Paragon and Ranger (either P/R or R/P) could use "Go for the Eyes!" to drastically increase the chance to critical making the preparation skill much more useful. Just a thought/suggestion.--

Vallen Frostweaver 07:56, 23 February 2007 (CST)

The sad thing is, that build made Dwarven Battle Stance look good. >.> — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 16:29, 23 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Build:W/D Vital Tank

You moved this build to unfavored when the vote was 1:3 (Net: -2). I don't want to get into a rv war, so could you please just fix it? Defiant Elements 23:44, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Whoops. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 23:45, 22 February 2007 (CST)

noooob!11!! lurn2count plx :P -Auron

07:59, 23 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Build talk:E/Me Psychic Warder‎

May I ask what Savannah Heat has to do with a Warding/Psychic Distraction Build? Defiant Elements 23:00, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Simple. There's no place for a PD ele in HA. Use SH. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 03:17, 24 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Build talk:R/Rt Armed Assault

You strike your vote? --SBR 03:20, 24 February 2007 (CST)

No, someone else did. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 03:21, 24 February 2007 (CST)

I thought so, that's why I asked. --SBR 03:22, 24 February 2007 (CST)

I invite you to a discussion about guild wars: Setup for a Campaign?. Also, thanks for the communist userbox. Van Wark 15:33, 9 March 2007 (CST)

[edit] the boy scout one

... That's been debated before. I put the GvG tag on *after* seeing [BET], [NUKE], and other guilds running that build instead of burning arrow. As you know from running the burning arrow yourself, it runs out of energy in no time, and the only time the enemy is really hurting is when they're burning (which is 4 seconds out of every 10 or so). This one keeps them at 7 degen continuously, and has *no* energy problem period. That's why they used it. Now, people are switching the elite to Crippling Shot, but Prepared Shot was used for a good while. I don't want to get in a revert war, so I'll let you rectify it. -Auron 00:58, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

Yea, I'll check that out. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 01:10, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Begs on knees

May I please use your hammer and Sickle image :(...please, pretty please...Readem (talk*contribs) 20:23, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Gross, you use a stance Tank :P

Nothing else must be said. Readem (talk*contribs) 15:44, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

? — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 15:57, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] umm...

Isn't your guild [itch]?? You had some other thing, and last time I checked you were still in the guild with me...— Cheese Slaya (Talk) 15:40, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Haven't updated that in a while, too lazy to anyways. :P — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 15:31, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] You have been Invited

Hello, you are cordially invited to participate and or contribute, to these pages.
Skill of the Week
User Box Museum

Readem (talk*contribs) 13:36, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Retrieved from "http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/User_talk:Rapta"