User talk:C886553

/Archive1/Archive2

Bot
Yay first edit! You're absolutely right that we talk about nothing useful (though we do have meaningful discussions occasionally), but that's what makes it so fun! Also, acorns>grapes. Grapes you have to eat individually. =/ It's slow. I find it funny that your bot made more edits in two hours than you did in ten months. 03:40, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, this isn't my main wiki. See here ;) Ajraddatz Talk 03:47, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rwojy meant the present for me. You don't want it. It will be some bomb/explosive that will kill me. 04:21, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, but I am stealing it :P. I tend to love butting into other people's conversations... Sorry. Ajraddatz Talk 04:22, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Re: That recent vandal report...
Sorry about that. I just assumed he might have been upset at the update and was attempting to vandalize that article, but it's obvious that I've jumped to the wrong conclusion without any valid reasoning behind it. Thanks for letting me know about my mistake, and I hope I haven't didn't cause any problems by "jumping the gun" earlier. 04:31, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Archive links
You need links to any/all of your archived talk pages at the top of your talk page, for ref. purposes and such. Thanks.--Degenret01 04:38, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ajraddatz Talk 04:39, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Thanks
I understand your frustrations. I believe the community here is more into manual editing (labour) as compared to Wikipedia, where automated edits rule the day. How I wish there were bots here similar to the ones in Wikipedia. I truly wish that you would try again some other time. And I hope you don't leave the wiki out of frustration... please continue contributing to this wiki. Best wishes. 18:08, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * It annoys me as well how this community hates change. We never seem to accept anything new on the terms of "It was working well beforehand". I like many of the things your bot can offer, although it seems the community has no need for them. Thanks for trying. Cheers, 23:19, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Re:
That was my fault for assuming it was vandalism. Usually (98/100) a large decrease in an exchange page is vandalism, so I rollbacked first and didn't notice that my edit added back. 03:33, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I assumed that you did something like that. Don't forget to check next time ;) Ajraddatz Talk 03:35, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Nice to see you back. 22:12, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just doing some bot stuff, actually. This is more about beating User:VegaDark's editcount than being active here again :P Ajraddatz Talk 22:12, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lmao, you already have him beat hands down. 600+ to 21. 22:14, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I'm talking about global edits. I'm a few thousand behind him :/ Ajraddatz Talk 22:15, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's OK, I understand. 22:26, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Trolls are to be ignored
Never ever ever encourage someone to vandalize here. See RS:DFTT. We don't need that crap. Thanks. --Degenret01 23:07, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I never, ever feed the trolls. What are you talking about? I revert vandalism across Wikia, know a lot more about vandalism than you do, and follow Wikia's general guidelines at all times. Please, what are you talking about? Ajraddatz Talk 23:08, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Telling some one to vandalize definitely falls under DFTT. . --Degenret01 23:14, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. However, read a bit more and you will find that what I was saying is that the vandalism would be undone within seconds. That was the point of it. Also, that wasn't a troll, just a normal good faith user. Please read a bit more carefully. Ajraddatz Talk 23:23, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never treated you as a troll, please stop being so argumentative. And anyone saying what he did about our wiki is NOT a good faith user. Anyone else could come along and read that "invite" to vandalize. Just don't do it, very simple. Thanks and cheers.--Degenret01 23:43, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes overload
Hey, I noticed your doing quite a few bot edits. If your going to be doing this, I ask you go to your prefs and mark "mark my edits as minor by default". While your doing this, I would like to hide all minor edits so I can look at the non-automated edits (such as vandalism, sloppy coding, and other things I look for) that the automated edits are making harder to find. I also recommend you don't make this a habit, as I imagine other users will begin to be upset by it. 00:58, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought that I already had that set. Also, these are semi-automated, not bot edits. Ajraddatz Talk 01:00, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont worry, They are already marked as minor =D Stelercus, select Hide minor edits on the recent changes to hide 'em. -- 01:01, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't have it set to hide them at the time of writing, and got around to doing it just in time to see this message and get into an edit conflict (gotta' love em'). 01:03, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that I would love to be doing this on a bot account right now, but since the community opposed it's flagging, here I am. The forum is closed, so that wasn't something meant to get you to support it ;) Ajraddatz Talk 01:06, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that I do not see a clear advantage to what your doing. What is it? 01:08, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am bypassing redirects. While this may not seem very helpful, it is. Not only does it eliminate what links here problems, but it allows for all templates to not have the possibility of messing up when a page is moved, decreases the chance of double redirects, makes certain advanced extensions easier to use, and generally is cleaner :P Ajraddatz Talk 01:13, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of this, I don't know if this is really the best think to be doing. This redirect fixing is just introducing a lot of unneeded code into articles. It seems unnecessary and better if fixed by hand. For instance, on here, you linked player Moderators to player moderators, when simply removing the capital M would be the best way to go about it. -- 01:14, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * This allows for the article to be the same, while fixing the problem. Also, this is only what, about 100 times faster than by hand? Ajraddatz Talk 01:18, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem that Aburnett brought up was a legitimate one, but it's just impossible for a bot to judge when it's best to replace the article link text and when it's best to leave the article text as is. For example, I have fixed a link to Rellekka that was put as Relekka by the bot, since it has no way of telling that there was a misspelled word. But, for other things, it's best to leave the article text as is. My position on this is that it doesn't make much difference either way, so just let the bot run its course. 01:23, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, the only problem there is is spelling. However, it still fixes the problem, but leaves any original errors present. That is still a win. Also, this isn't really valid, because as I just said the problem is fixed, and that is what matters. This way it also preserves the article, so as stated directly above the only mistake is that it doesn't correct the original mistakes. Overall, a benefit. Ajraddatz Talk 01:27, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Please cease this defensive manner, it is not exactly attractive and has turned a number of RSWikians against you. I think that bots are a good thing and that when implemented right they should certainly be welcome. However, the manner in which you have been acting is not impressive. Some times ypou just have to admit that you're wrong and bow to the will of the community. Dark avorian 23:51, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * What manner is this? Why can't you leave me alone? Ajraddatz Talk 00:04, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the "will of the community" in this case can be summed up in this general statement: "I have no clue how bots work, and think that the current slow way of making minor changes is sufficient". Ajraddatz Talk 00:07, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no comments on whether or not the will of the community is the "right" view. However this wiki is run by CONSENSUS. By the way, the manner I was referring to was demonstrated quite aptly by you above, you refused to cede any points, acknowledge my actual argument, instead attacked a side comment I made as background info. (EDIT: Oops, sig) Dark avorian 00:11, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * "...I would love to be doing this on a bot account right now, but since the community opposed it's flagging, here I am." That, I have a problem with. The community opposed the bot, why are you going ahead with it anyways, on your own account? That goes against a community decision and RS:BOTS.
 * It was requested on his forum that he demonstrate his bot and its edits for about two weeks. I don't think the two weeks are up yet. 00:16, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind. Scratch that. Time sure flies. 00:17, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, he declined the request for a bot. tLUL, you're right this is in violation of RS:BOTS. Also, don't insult us with comments like "the "will of the community" in this case can be summed up in this general statement:I have no clue how bots work, and think that the current slow way of making minor changes is sufficient". We are entitled to our own opinions, even if they are different from yours. You should learn to accept that. -- 00:21, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your semi-automation
Hi Ajr, I'd like to discuss your semi-automated edits with you. It seems that although many of your edits are constructive, the plurality of the community doesn't seem to like them. The community doesn't seem to like having the Recent changes flooded with semi-automated edits. Although I realize that your automation hass a large potential at the wiki, everything must be community approved through the consensus system. The current consensus seems to be against your bot, largely due to lack of knowledge about the power of automation. However, since that is the consensus, we still have to abide by it. So, could you please yield to the prevailing opinion and cease the semi-automation (or tone it down slightly)? Thanks! 00:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, don't worry about it. This is just like AWB, which is allowed, and I confirm every edit before it is saved. I'm actually not as involved in this as I let on, am well aware that other people have their own opinions, and respect them. However, RuneScape Wiki as a whole bothers me. First of all, the entire wiki is built to emulate Wikipedia. Every thing here is just copied from there, nothing original. The main thing that bothers me though is this; a community completely incapable of doing anything in a mature and orderly fashion. It might surprise you to hear me say this, but all that you need to do is follow the links to some of the RfAs that I have filed, or the wikis that I contribute to (other than this one). I am actually not an immature moron bent on being a rebel against the wiki's rules/policies, like it may seem. However, I find it very funny to watch the reactions of some very thick skulled people, putting down my attempts to help the wiki. While it really bugs me that people can be so blind, and unable to accept any new ideas, it's OK. I'm mature enough to not react in a negative way to this. The only thing that I regret about my actions is that it gives people like you, or TLUL, the wrong impression about me.
 * However, since the stuff that I am using is semi-automatic, and not in violation of RS:BOTS (which is also mainly copied from Wikipedia, or the general idea anyways), I will continue such edits. Although, yes, I could slow it down a bit. What I regret is losing my head for all of about five minutes a few weeks ago, which has ruined my reputation here and severely disabled my ability to help out here. Ultimately however, I don't care about RuneScape Wiki. I contribute to other wikis with flexible communities, and people who are willing to try new things. Thanks, Ajraddatz Talk 00:47, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, some more examples of how unoriginal this wiki is: (RuneScape:All_editors_are_equal - Wikipedia:WP:EQUAL) (RS:AGF - Wikipedia:WP:AGF) (RS:DFTT - ). Actually, looking at the policies, the only original ones are really the style guide and the game-specific ones. Ajraddatz Talk 00:52, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, what's detrimental about copying Wikipedia policies? I'm of the opinion that if Wikipedia has useful text that we could incorporate here, then we should go for it. 00:55, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are so immature, I do not understand why you are still here. And why would we re-write policies, if they are already fine in their current state.  I think you completely ignored the point about it spamming recent changes as well.  Also-I think some of us might feel uneasy as your bot is running without community consensus.  Personally...I don't have any problem with it, as it is doing helpful things, other than the fact that it makes it hard for anyone else to edit things in recent changes due to the spam.   01:00, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still here because this is a large wiki, and it is one of the wikis that can benefit most from some stuff that I can do. Also, thanks, it is nice to know that at least /some/ people can recognize constructive editing. Also, the issue with copying Wikipedia is that you aren't properly implementing the policies. On Wikipedia, my current actions would qualify under IAR; since a policy is clearly standing in the way of me helping out. Ajraddatz Talk 01:07, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I realize that I am clogging the RC. The next time I run the thing, I'll do it slowly over a long time period. Thanks for the constructive input. Ajraddatz Talk 01:08, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, another reason that many people are opposed to your bot is that you have stated this is to boost your edit count. I don't think many people like the idea of editing for the sake of editing. 21:09, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am joking. I have 25,000 edits across Wikia, am an administrator on 6 large wikis. I know that editcount means nothing. However, while myself and VegaDark like to "compete", we both don't just go to a random wiki and start editing it solely to increase our editcount. See, this had given you the wrong impression of me. Ajraddatz Talk 21:20, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't try an intimidate us with your resume, and don't hold onto RS:IAR without noticing this "Rules are supposed to help improve the wiki in most cases, but if you feel they aren't doing their jobs in a particular case, you can go against them. This should not be done without a good reason and a consensus." Also, please try to understand that the will of the community is not a rule that you can quote policies against, It is the most basic unit of our wiki.Dark avorian 23:49, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I actually liked the idea of the bot, but I am displeased with the way you react to the denial and the comments about your activities. Dark avorian 23:49, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are people still here? Honestly, I have explained my reasons without flat out saying how dumb I think this wiki is, just leave me alone. I am not harming the wiki, so take your anti-troll devices elsewhere. Thanks. Ajraddatz Talk 23:51, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I am not "intimidate you with my resume". I state it simply as a fact to get you out of your current mind set. Ajraddatz Talk 23:53, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just one last comment, and then this is closed. The reason that I dislike the wiki, and got upset is the fact that never have I received such a negative reaction for trying to help a wiki. It has never happened on this scale before. Even Wikipedia, who is famous for scaring away newcomers, is more receptive to useful contributors than this wiki is. Thanks, Ajraddatz Talk 23:56, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

'''Please do not edit this section further. It is closed by author request, and to avoid a flame war. Thanks.''' 23:58, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Signature
Do you manually type out the code for your signature every single time you sign? I've always wondered that. -- 01:05, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, no. That would be hard work and tedious. Then I would need to go all like Ajraddatz Talk . That wouldn't make much sense ;) Ajraddatz Talk 01:07, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. >.< -- 01:08, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * You can put stuff in your sig box other than templates, ya know :P Ajraddatz Talk 01:09, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Your recent edits
Although it may seem like I'm using AWB, my current task is being done totally manually. As a personal rule, whenever I undo someone's edits that are not vandalism (what I'm doing now), I leave the edit unhidden so they can see what I'm doing (as some people have minor changes always hidden). Sorry for the inconvenience, I've got just about 10 pages left. -- 01:14, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only 40 pages. It would take longer (for me at least) to get a bot to do that task, it only takes me a few minutes anyways. Plus, Gaz made some general edits that I had to dodge while reverting to make sure that only the problematic code was removed. -- 01:19, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Poll
Your new poll gives us quite a lot of choice <.< 01:43, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the four is the best wiki... Ajraddatz Talk 01:45, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Brickipedia? Never heard of it before  01:46, March 28, 2010 (UTC)