User talk:Paul Z

Hi  01:18, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody responded in chat
Good work on the quick guide. Also welcome back, I haven't seen you in a while. 02:54, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Forum Replying
Please refrain from making remarks upon any other editors views on your proposed addition to degrading items. It's unhelpful and it's causing friction that should be prevented from continuing. If someone disagrees with you, do not continue the dialogue with insults such as commenting as you did here. It is unproductive, so please discontinue the pushing of something that some may not want or think is a necessity. 19:54, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * The "insult" to which you're referring is actually a remark about how he's being catty in his imitation of how I write my comments. About the rest of what you've said: Oh, so it's OK for others to make remarks about the view I'm putting out there, but the minute I do the same to their views (as part of a healthy discussion), I'm to be silenced? Causing friction is purely subjective when discussing something as objective as the merits (or sometimes the lack thereof) of someone's particular view. I'm not "pushing" anything either. If you'd read the whole discussion, you'd have noticed that most of us came to the consensus that a broadening of the definition of degradation, as well as the expansion of a category, are in order. Regardless, telling me to stop supporting my own idea just because most people who've voiced their opinion on it disagree with it is an appeal to majority; a logical fallacy. 20:42, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * You are confronting people that oppose you as you are doing right above this. You can support your idea as much as you desire, but it comes off as crude. It matters for all sides in the conversation. I have no opinion on the subject at hand, but your handling of it isn't great. If I get in-game messages about what happens in the forums it concerns me. So please, if you have to make a point, do not discount what others have posted.
 * Being so candor does not always help. Also, if you were being 'silenced', it would be in the form of measures that I do not do. 20:53, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * In-game messages about what happens on the forums? Are you kidding me? I'm not "confronting" anyone. I'm objectively replying to things directed at me. Coming off as crude does not warrant a request to kindly stop defending my position. If what others have said constitutes illogical nonsense derived from baseless arguments, then yes, I will discount it. No one seems to be able to objectively evaluate the content of what's being said and instead opts for ad hominems. 21:00, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Democracy on the Wiki
Hi. I was trying not to be confrontational. Yes, I did review your idea. Yes, I did try to consider how useful it would be. If RS had a far wider array of exotic items that degraded, especially in even more exotic ways, then I would have considered supporting for adding it. But most items already say if and how it degrades in the item description. Admittedly, my decision to oppose did straddle the line of being superficial. You are going to learn that there are people who would support and oppose ... well ... anything ... often with minimal reasoning. But as many ideas brought up for discussion aren't viewed by many, and probably fewer voice a direct opinion. --Deltaslug (talk) 20:13, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * Way to be patronizing as hell. As if I'm not aware that others are capable and allowed to post their views. Equally though, that means that I'm allowed to defend my own views and to engage in discussions about the subject to try to reach something that resembles a solution; which happened even before you initially commented. Again, you clearly haven't read any of this, since you still think I'm on about the original idea. 20:42, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Augmentable
Degrade to dust items cannot be augmented, please do not add that category. 01:35, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * You realise I undid my own edits after I realised that of my own accord right? "Please do not" comment on my page when you're slower than I am at correcting my own mistakes, and "please do not" tell me what to do like that.
 * Try to be less rude. Also try to be less wrong. 01:40, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's an ironic remark. Telling me to be less rude then immediately telling me to be less wrong, which in itself is rude. This is brand new content, and I was going off this: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape2/images/0/04/RuneFest_2015_-_Invention_augmentable_items.png/revision/latest?cb=20151003145424 . After I realised that t90 power armour isn't augmentable I undid those edits. Therefore, there was nothing for me to be wrong about. Stop with your pretentious bickering and focus on finding out facts next time. More importantly, wait a modicum of a minute more before barking orders and insults at people before they have a chance to correct their honest mistake.

Items
Please make an effort to use the infobox, instead of adding a bunch of categories. 15:26, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the categories I added are legitimate. Now stop bitching every time I do something you don't like. Cry somewhere else about it.
 * The categories are to be added by the infobox. So fill in the infobox. Stop being an asshole. 15:28, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll stop being an asshole when you stop micromanaging every fucking edit I make.
 * We have pre-established guidelines on how to create and maintain pages. It'd be much more helpful if you followed form instead of pushing against the grain and getting personally insulted when something incorrect has been fixed. 15:31, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * "Pushing against the grain" eh? Is that what you call it when I do something slightly inconvenient for you? You're a piece of work, pretentiously barking orders at me on my damn talk page instead of simply fixing the edits and allowing me to observe.
 * That's exactly what I'm talking about with the getting personally insulted at everything. 15:37, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * You're literally making personal by coming to my talk page to command me to do things a certain way, and condescendingly at that. Just fix the damn edits that irk you, and I can see what the hell I did wrong. Personally attacking me like this does absolutely nothing, yet you're too short-sighted to see that.
 * Or maybe I'm trying to inform you in case you didn't see my edits. Seriously, I'm informing you of a guideline and you're treating it as an insult. Dude, calm down. 15:40, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh trust me asshole, I see your damn edits. You're not merely "informing me of a guideline"; you've repeatedly been condescending and micromanaging when it comes to telling me how to edit.

Can you stop being to confrontational, please? 15:41, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would like it if he would stop confronting me on my talk page as well.
 * The one constant in your previous interactions, resulting in talk page messages asking you to cool it/stop/etc (e.g. most of your archive and the above discussions), is you. 15:51, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Gee, you think? It's sort of necessary that I be involved in order to be contacted. I'd be rather concerned if I was getting messaged about someone else's activities.

Paul, calm down. Nobody likes being told something they've done is wrong, but that's life. Mol is quite a confrontational person and can come across as condescending sometimes, but if you react with more aggressive behaviour and start becoming agitated by it, then you'll just generate more problems. Personally, unlike Gaz above, I don't really care about your previous behaviour currently or how you've responded to criticism in the past, but you need to understand that "fighting fire with fire" is not how to have a discussion. If you think something Mol or anyone is doing or saying is violating RS:UTP, then let an admin know, whether that's through chat or their talk page. Mol has been blocked and warned various times in the past for violating this policy, as have you, and you both have one common issue - you can both be confrontational and argumentative. If he's violating it, he'll be blocked again, simple. If he's not, don't respond with something worse that can see you violating this policy or getting blocked yourself. Personally, Mol has criticised me a ton, and sometimes it is harsh, but like I said at the start - it is part of life. You're doing a good job in editing, even if some of your edits may have slight problems, but listen to the criticism and accept it. Your talk page is here for people to praise you or critique you. Expect it. Whatever you do, wherever you do it, you'll receive criticism. Editing content here is like putting your work on display - it will be ripped to shreds if it isn't good enough. Cool down and don't respond to it further.
 * And who in the hell are you? I never said I don't like being told that what I did was wrong, it's the way he's saying it, and the fact he's doing it almost immediately after the fact, on top of the fact that he corrected the mistake. The latter entirely sufficient to make the point. I see the corrected edit, and I learn from that. Having some asshole come to my talk page to further harass me about it does nothing but add insult to injury. So save the condescending undertone for someone else. Don't you dare even begin to compare the both of us. We have absolutely nothing in common. This is my talk page, so I'm fully entitled to respond to everything people post on it. I will not sit here and take his (or anyone else's for that matter) abuse silently. This tactless moron needs to learn how to interact with others.

Paul, there's a distinction between personal attacks and criticism or discussion...not everyone who leaves you a note here is out to get you, but you seem to be predisposed to think they are.

In this case, it's reasonable to leave a message for someone after a revert like that. While it might be a bit agitating to have something like that fixed by someone else before you (possibly) try to fix it yourself...from the perspective of a recent changes patroller, it's not really feasible in general to wait around for that possibility. I know you and Mol have some history and his message was a little bit condescending (and I'm not going to speculate as to his reasons for continuing this). Still, launching a holy war whenever he (or anyone else) corrects your edits isn't going to improve anything for anyone. I don't like having to deal with this shit, neither does Gaz. We're all trying to make the best resource we can, and this personal conflict bullshit (just in general) serves no useful purpose and distracts from our mission. Let's move on and realize everyone could have handled this a bit better. 16:40, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Guilt (Nomad's Elegy)
I fought it, I even have evidence. The fight with Guilt is at 39:24. 19:11, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. For some reason, I never fought Guilt. I only dealt with Shame. Oh well.

Test
Test. 18:01, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

Quest point cape
I reverted your change on quest point cape because you basically changed it back to a version from six months ago. Why? 20:44, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, all evidence I can find points to the Mining requirement not being boostable. 21:07, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I was looking at an old version of the page and it must've edited from that version, simple mistake. About the Mining requirement, how do you explain this though? http://i.imgur.com/bX30i3y.png

I took that screenshot on September 14th, 2011. Unless it's a weird glitch, that guy seems to have been able to do the quest without the required Mining level. 21:23, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

According to http://forum.tip.it/topic/302707-can-i-boost-any-stats-for-rotm/ there may have been a glitch that made it boostable on release, but that was unintentional and hasn't been that way for about five years. 21:24, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, duly noted. 21:34, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

Nomad's Elegy/Quick guide
Please take your discussion to a talk page - either the article talk page or one of your user talk pages. I'd expected you to know better than to edit war since you've been here for a while, but apparently you're unaware of RS:3RR. This is your first (and last) warning: the next person to undo will get a short block. Please leave the page as it is until your wording dispute is resolved. -- 07:03, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't break 3RR because the reverts were not made within the same 24 hours. As for the wording dispute, he's literally making utter shit edits and ruining the pre-existing quality content of the page. I don't really think there will be a point at which it can be stated that the dispute has been resolved. 23:36, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also read RS:GTS. -- 00:35, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * "Don't interpret policies and editors word-for-word."? Am I meant to take that at face value or is there some common sense interpretation I'm missing? Also, I've posted to his talk page. Do I now have to wait for his drivel of a response before I can fix Nomad's Elegy/Quick guide? 00:40, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? The first example listed on the page is exactly what you're trying to do right now. -- 02:36, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, do I have to wait for this guy to reply to my post on his talk page to be able to fix the mess he's created of Nomad's Elegy/Quick guide? 04:15, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wait for a response, please. There are so many other things that need fixing in the meantime. This is just one page, and it's relatively readable either way. -- 05:44, February 28, 2016 (UTC)

User treatment policy reminder
Hey, could you please remember the user treatment policy when leaving messages on other users' pages? Some of your recent interactions with others have been inappropriately rude and abrasive. 21:47, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * You're clearly referring to my interactions with one vandalising individual in particular (Wobbiso), so there's no need to blurt out general, vague statements. First, he calls me arrogant. Next, he calls me young and extremely narrow-minded, then proceeds to break RS:DDD by removing that remark. After I rationally reply to him and objectively evaluate his actions and lack of ability (among other things), I'm the one who gets slapped across the face with a RS:UTP reminder. Sure. Logic. 22:35, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * Read point 2 of the DDD exceptions. As fer ye, the reason fer this warning is this:


 * Telling somebody that they're inept and shouldnae bother editing is unacceptable. Please stop with the demeaning comments towards Wobbiso.  The actions of others disnae clear ye of any wrongdoing or permit ye to make those sorts of comments  22:45, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you could rewrite that in proper English, especially considering this my talk page. 01:05, March 2, 2016 (UTC)