User talk:Battleben

First!!
http://i.imgur.com/MGznutC.jpg

09:16, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Zombies
Do the zombies from The Dead Walk! and from that Jmod infection thingy need an infobox? I mean, they have a unique model. Might be in the bestiary... 09:43, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, happy birthday! I hope you get something good. A pet Muspah, or something. 15:24, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Translucency
Please explain why you have, again, uploaded images that need translucency without their backgrounds? 19:47, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've warned you on this too many times. For the last time: It's not up to you whether an image with a translucent part will suffice with or without a background. ALL of them should be uploaded with a background. Now we are going to be stuck with fairies with wooden wings and a vampyre with green webbing until someone gets around to adding translucency to them. I have blocked you for three days. In this time, please, again, review RS:IMG. 02:59, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not break any policies. The closing comment for Forum:Change to translucency methods was "Option 1 will be implemented,with common sense, of course.", and RS:IMG states "If adding particle transparency or translucency is deemed too arduous, normal transparency may be added without cutting out particles, but the image should then be reverted to the original state without transparency if it is aesthetically superior over a partially transparent form." In my opinion, for the fairies, the transed images were aesthetically superior. But yeah, we're probably going to need another Yew Grove to settle this, as RS:IMG is rather vague, as what's aesthetically superior is rather subjective. 08:34, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * You were warned that you were repeatedly disregarding policies, and that should you continue, action may be taken. You continued your disregard for the policies, and action was taken. It's quite simple. Note how you mentioned that what is aesthetically superior is subjective, yet you state that the transed version is aesthetically superior as if your opinion has some sort of objective proof. Also, RS:IMG is fairly clear. The "common sense" aspects deal with minor details where the part with translucency cannot be seen without inspecting the image closer. The images you uploaded require translucency on approximately half of the non-transed portion. This is clearly in violation of the policy. I suggest you take this break and make sure you follow policies in the future. Also, realize that you are the only user having this problem, so it's probably not an issue with the policy itself. 08:42, June 23, 2013 (UTC) unblock Denied.  08:47, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the polices after being warned, and I thought for these images, the areas that required translucency were pretty small and barely noticable. And no, RS:IMG is not fairly clear, it says that images that require translucency are allowed if the transed images are aesthetically superior. In my opinion, they were, but in your opinion, they weren't. How is that not subjective? I am not saying that my opinion was any more valid than yours and fergies, but how was I supposed to know what other people thought was superior if they hadn't seen it? 08:51, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * Wording of the policy aside, how can you possible say that the parts of this image which require translucency are "pretty small and barely noticable [sic]"? My first thought when viewing that image was, "What is wrong with her wings?" It has odd colors due to the background, and you can't possibly say that the difference that the background makes is negligible. 09:04, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at Fairy Very Wise and Fairy Nuff it isn't very noticable when you see the images scaled down on the actual pages. Anyway, I did Aeryka last, so I assumed she'd be like the other ones, but I can see the problem with her, and I guess I was wrong. Speaking of which, I forgot to resize the image of Fairy Aeryka's page, and now I am incapable of doing so, would you mind fixing that please? 09:10, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be some confusion on what exactly the policy means, I'll err on the on the side of caution in future and not trans ANY translucent images. Anyway, the only effect the block is having is preventing me from positively contributing to the wiki, so if anyone would be kind enough to unblock me, that would be great. 11:55, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone care to tell me why I was blocked AGAIN? I hadn't even made any edits since Coel unblocked me. Furthermore, I have not yet received any decent reasons for my first block. (and no, having an disagreement over what an ambiguous section in RS:IMG means is not justification for a block, Blocks are for preventing further disruption to the wiki, not to to gain an advantage in a content dispute.) 08:03, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * Special:Log/block 10:26, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. 15:50, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe my first three warnings were quite clear. In the fourth warning I said that if you breech RS:IMG again, I would take action. You did, and I took action. 18:31, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet I did not breach RS:IMG. RS:IMG states that images should be reverted to the original state without transparency if it is aesthetically superior over a partially transparent form, which, for the fairies, I considered the transparent version to be aesthetically superior. I do agree that part of the policy is badly worded though, as what's aesthetically superior is completely subjective. At any rate, while this block is rather silly, i'm tired of arguing about it, so I'll just wait for it to end >_>. 19:05, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Smashing
is not what you got your custodian tools for. They are meant for maintenance purposes, and filenames should be descriptive. If they are already descriptive then don't move them. If you want to make that joke, just compress the file and upload it saying "Smashing the filesize" or whatever, but don't move the file just for a lame joke. 15:18, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Hai
User talk:Fswe1. Have fun. 08:45, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Ali/Wahi dialogue after Enakhra's Lament
http://pastebin.com/n0FC8GK3 05:34, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Slayercat
No idea what this slayercat thing is, but it's removing the ability to show/hide combat stats. 18:47, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. 18:48, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * It was Mol who did that, and I concur with his comment of that edit... IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 19:13, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

In regards to this, shouldn't it at least be "Aviansie" instead of "Avianse"; avoiding a redirect? IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 05:40, July 2, 2013 (UTC)