User talk:(wszx)

Rollback
Hi there, please review the Rollback examples before requesting for rollback. After you have read it thoroughly and understand when to use it, you may sign here. 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason I have to sign the page? I've reviewed what this wiki thinks is the way to do rollback, and will abide by it. This signature really means nothing. (wszx) ''' 21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"They are known for"
That says that it is common knowledge. Now maybe you personally find it to be true, but when no one I asked knew anything about it, it means it is not common knowledge, therefore the statement is indeed incorrect.--Degenret01 01:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is handily one of the most absurd things ever written. It's only common knowledge if you and your clique know about it, but not anybody else? Really? (wszx) ''' 01:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if I asked only my "clique" it could be, although my "clique" has a lot of people that slay them often so they are a decent sample to ask. But I took the further step of asking a few people slaying them on a couple of worlds also. One person said they heard of it, but had not found it to be true.--Degenret01 02:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you're missing the point. Unless you're asking on the scale of hundreds of people, corroborated by other editors' queries, it's not reasonable to suggest what you have heard is truly indicative.
 * We needn't belabor this point, however. Are you disputing that they drop a lot of blue charms? (wszx) ''' 02:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:Barrows set
IGN - In-game name. Sorry about that, probably shouldn't have abbreviated it. See Style Guide, where it says that the IGN should be used. 03:09, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello, please stop your edit war with User:Chipmunk9998 on Tome of frost right now. Talk it over. If you both don't stop, then expect to be blocked from editing. Additionally, you are abusing your rollback rights. Stop. Ajraddatz Talk 17:53, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an edit war. There have been two reverts. Please don't issue stupid warnings you cannot enforce. Thanks. (wszx)  17:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC) 
 * It is an edit war, and you have abused your rollback rights. Talk it out. 3RR doesn't mean that it takes three reverts to become an edit war, it becomes one after one revert. Also, this isn't a threat, and I can have you blocked via a request to an admin. Ajraddatz Talk 17:59, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Blocking
it would have just made things worse, trust me. Power abuse, conspiracy, dictatorship, etc. That all would have been thrown against me, and I didn't feel like having to defend my self because a couple of people are being offensive. 04:10, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The neat thing about that though, is that if your block is justified then you won't have to worry about the defense because others will take note and voice support. Closing an entire thread, when part of the problem in question is admins cutting off discussion, seems ill-advised. (wszx)  04:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) 
 * Yeah, but you forget the avergae user here. You had it twice, and you were entirely correct. .  04:16, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Explanation, please?
As I said in my edit summary, "I understand removing Halo's addition to this page because his addition wasn't made by consensus. Removing the "get out of jail free card" section was also not done by consensus." Why did you remove the "get out of jail free card" section? I would appreciate if you would respond to this message on my talk page. Leftiness 23:36, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it saying "doing so will increase your chance of being kicked" is pointless, but I think it's important to make sure that chat members know that they shouldn't expect a warning. Honestly, I think that a message to everyone's talk page saying so would do more good for the unjust kicking thread epidemic than any yew grove discussion. Leftiness 00:00, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the part I removed did nothing to enforce that warnings won't always be given; rather it actively propagated such a notion. (wszx)  00:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 

Userpage
I like your userpage and name

Just popped in to say that

I like userpages and names

That's my job round 'ere

It pays well

Deal with it

It also counts for 99.6% of my edit count

Check if you don't believe me

Anyway. Byeee - 13:02, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks. (wszx)  20:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * Love the userpage. I'll take the bunny with a waffle on its head for $250, Ted. Coelacanth0794 20:53, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
It's to be used in cases of obvious vandalism and only in cases of obvious vandalism. Removing nonconstructive, flaming edits is perfectly allowed and is even mentioned in RS:DDD. 06:31, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your removal was inappropriate and tantamount to vandalism. It was a proper revert and I will do it again. (wszx)  06:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * It was not "blatant flaming". It wasn't the nicest statement ever, but it wasn't blatant flaming.  If you disagree, I will gladly get more neutral editors to add their opinions.  But here, you are playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner.  The block was warranted in my opinion (due to the other stuff he has done.)  But the comments should and will remain upon the thread.   06:36, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked you for violating RS:3RR and misusing your rollback tool. 06:38, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Unblock
Ignoring the fact that my reverts were wholly appropriate, Andrew has a conflict of interest and absolutely should not have blocked me. Please remedy this. (wszx)  06:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * I agree with the block. The comments that were removed were not constructive to the discussion and it was very obvious that they would lead to a flame war. And the reverts were not appropriate at all. It wasn't vandalism to remove those comments so the revert tool wasn't supposed to be used. You should have posted on andrew's talk page instead of endlessly reverting his edits. I sympathize with you in that I can see how removing the comments could be seen as wrong, but that doesn't exonerate you from wrongdoing. 06:45, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrew did not only remove the alleged flaming, he removed his threat (which he executed) to block the editor in question. That is an abysmal abuse of power—conflicts of interest prevent Andrew from blocking Composite. In removing this, he was seeking to cover up his abuse of tools. That cannot be allowed to stand. Further, the edits were not flaming of the order that they must be removed. So, yes, Andrew's removal was vandalism and my use of rollback is valid and exempt from 3RR. Someone should go unblock Composite, btw. (wszx)  06:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * You have been unblocked. I forgot that RS:3RR gives you a maximum of three reverts and I thought that it meant to block anyone that reverts three times. I do extend my apologies, but you did misuse rollback. Now, of course I removed my warning to block them. What was the point of leaving it up if Col's comments were removed? 06:51, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing your warning does not mean it never happened. You still blocked him. It is not acceptable for you to bury your abuses in the page history. (wszx)  06:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 


 * Well would you have him leave a threat but have none of the things that lead up to that threat? The threat was no more part of the conversation than the flaming. And there's no way he could cover it up. There's a block log that lists every single block made here. I think you are being absurdly paranoid to assume that it was an attempt to cover up what he did. He's not some tyrant who steals people away and erases his tracks. He was just trying to ensure a friendly and orderly discussion, which Cool wasn't contributing to. In either case, cool as blocked for a violation of the user treatment policy so his block is completely independent from yours and still stands. 06:56, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I would have him leave everything I reverted to restore. I'm not being paranoid, if Andrew really were interested in transparency, he simply could have redacted the "flaming" and left everything else in place. (wszx)  06:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * Well I respect that you feel that way, but it wouldn't really accomplish anything... Because it would just seem like Andrew warning himself... WHO he was warning and then later blocked would still be buried in the page history, so having the warning there wouldn't really accomplish anything... Would you have felt better if he deleted all of the conversation and left a notice that he had removed flaming and blocked the user? 07:02, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing on that thread will accomplish anything. It was just flamebaiting from the very beginning, and look, I was right. It is just a center of negativity and problem. I wanted the warning to remain so that observers can see that Andrew is acting as an administrator in a situation where he has a conflict of interest, explicated by his warning. Clearly, though, nobody actually cares that Andrew is running rampant and blocking anyone who angers him. (wszx)  07:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * If I wanted to block anyone that angered me then I would have blocked many more people over the past few months. I once again apologize for your block and the way the situation was handled by myself, but what's done is done. 07:11, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not like that, blocking someone who was being aggressive and unconstructive is not running rampant, nor is it an abuse of powers. I was about ready to block that user myself, and I couldn't care less what goes on in the clan chat or anything. So if andrew hadn't blocked him then I would have. I agree the thread was maybe a little superfluous, but it was an attempt to have a legitimate discussion nonetheless, and cool was being aggressive, inflammatory, and unbecoming to that discussion. 07:15, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see two people blocked about whom he had a conflict of interest. Irrespective of the validity of the blocks, that is an abuse of power. While I disagree that Composite's comments warranted a block, had you or another admin blocked him it would have been acceptable. But Andrew did it. And that is bad form the highest order. (wszx)  07:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * Um... if someone deserves to be blocked, it shouldn't matter one bit who blocks him... 07:24, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. (wszx)  07:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * Look. I went in-game to try to find another neutral admin to help, but the only one that was online on my friends list wasn't responding and I knew that me going in the clan chat would just start up some more drama. I was also lagging like crazy so I panicked and did it all myself. For the third time, I apologize. I don't know what else you want to accomplish here. Nobody's perfect, but you are making this out to be something it isn't. 07:31, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

←You don't need to apologize to me. I think your blocks were inappropriate, and I seem to be the only one. So there doesn't seem to be harm or foul for you. (wszx)  07:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * I actually have to agree with wszx that it did matter who was the one who gave the block. Under normal circumstances, such as blatant vandalism to articles, it wouldn't matter who gave out the block, but when an admin is having an argument with a user and it ends with the user being given a block, to a large extent, it does matter who gave the block. In the case of Soldier and Composite, I do agree that with wszx that there was certainly a conflict of interest there. Being the one who has arguing with Composite, giving him a block would make it seem like Soldier had a veiled interest for doing so (not that I'm saying he did) than attempting to moderate a discussion, which is why he really should have gotten another administrator to deal with it rather than himself.
 * This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Soldier hasn't properly accounted for his actions, and this isn't the first time he's played the "what's done is done" card. It doesn't matter that "Nobody's perfect" (it is true, acknowledged), he's expected to be fully responsible for his actions, and he doesn't seem to have taken note of anything I told him previously either, which is why I won't be surprised if such an issue arises again in the future. My two cents. 08:17, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Lolwut
XD
 * Maybe a little bit. (wszx)  00:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 

tt talk pages
I was trying to follow what you were doing but got confused... did you take the discussions you removed to somewhere else and why did you remove/move them? 00:14, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * What don't you understand. (wszx)  00:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 
 * Where did the discussions go and why did you do all that? 00:30, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussions at Talk:Treasure Trails guide went to Talk:Treasure Trails guide/Archive 1. Conversation from all other pages went to Talk:Treasure Trails guide/Collated archives. (wszx)  00:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 
 * Mmk. 00:36, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

this edit
was him using his shot up. People were nicely calmly explaining to him and he raged and became abusive. That is the edit where he loses the right to appeal any further, especially since his past behavior indicates he will continue to troll and abuse.--Degenret01 00:31, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then ban him. None of this one-week nonsense. If he is so flagrantly unacceptable that you cannot even allow him to appeal a block (irrespective of the possibility of its being granted), then don't even pretend you want to give him another chance by leaving the block at anything less than "you are not welcome here full stop". I do not support such action, but we should at least try to be consistent when disregarding fair play. (wszx)  00:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 
 * If you cared to read the description on the block, Gaz claimed he was blocked for a week to allow him to cool down... 00:39, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read the block reason, but thanks for your concern. Cool-down blocks never work, and its being such a block is all the more reason to allow him to appeal. Why an arbitrary seven days to cool down? Why not four? Why not ten? If indeed the purpose of the block is to allow him to cool, he certainly can cool before seven days so there's no reason to prevent him from intimating such a fact via unblock. It's a farce. (wszx)  00:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 
 * If you seem to take this a such a problem to the point you feel you must complain about it, go and make a thread on the Yew Grove or ask Gaz on his talk page to remedy the problem... 00:52, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me of my options. I was confused before, but now I know. (wszx)  00:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 

signature
Man, you have to put that sig in a template, or use the normal one.--Degenret01 09:25, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're such a bummer Ghosty :-) (wszx)  09:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 
 * It is soooooo incredibly annoying to see code where there should be simply a name and date. That is why we made the policy.--Degenret01 09:36, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Insults
Hey Harle, Could you not call things "flagrantly stupid" or "appallingly stupid"? You get your point across without insulting people or their opinions. 10:04, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're such a bummer Cook :-) (wszx)  21:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 
 * 20:23, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Daemonheim Scan
I deleted the image for several reasons. I recommend you get an Orb of oculus and try it again on HD (seeing as how all images are supposed to be taken in HD). I am also not sure what you thought the image in question was supposed to accomplish. 12:04, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It had a weird red border around it.
 * 2) It included the interface.
 * 3) The Character was the focus of the image rather than whatever the picture was supposed to be taken of.
 * Please don't do obscenely stupid things. The image is of a clue scroll location; having a low-quality image is better than none. Deleting it is deliberately unhelpful. Please restore the image. 21:50, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The image was of such low quality that it was doing more harm than good. I recommend you go to the same location and take the image again with the Orb of Oculus. Feel free to request it be un-deleted if you are unsatisfied still. Also, if you intend for me to respond to any of your comments, I will only see them if you leave them on my own talk page. 21:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what the intended purpose of the image was? What I am looking at is an image of a player surrounded by the game interface which is also surrounded by a strange red border (these qualities being what I was talking about when I said it was of low quality, not necessarily the graphical settings) which I cannot see as being helpful in any way. The reason I see it as doing more harm than good is the fact that the image itself has so many strange qualities that it can be disruptive on the page. When I said you can request it be un-deleted I was talking about going to RuneScape:Requests for undeletion where it can be discussed. 23:09, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are being stupid or disingenuous if you say you do not understand the purpose of the image. It's a clue scroll location, I don't know how to make it any more clear than that. I should not have to utilize that page because your deletion was improper in the first place. 23:52, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't resort to personal attacks. I am not entirely sure why there needs to be an image of this clue scroll location if it could just as easily be described, and there also appears to be similar pre-existing images of the same location. I am sure you can agree that the image in question is not even a third the best possible representation of the location, and I insist you create a new one. If you choose not to do this, I will do so in your absence. 23:59, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Because we try to have a picture of every clue scroll location. If you think that standard should be changed, then go for it. If there are other images of this location, but all means we can use those. But there were none for that location on the Guide page so I created one. I will not be creating a new one, instead I shall acquiesce to your clearly superior intelligence and remove all traces of the location and the image from the wikia so that those who come to this site for help will find none. 01:58, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Two Things
Talk to Caleb about the colour scheme, it's his side of the fest that the colours are for. Second of all, I don't know what you wanted me to respond to you about. 21:04, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked you to restore the image. 21:50, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm working on the colours. 01:03, August 24, 2010 (UTC)