User talk:Leon Art







Welcome to my talkpage, !

Zaros
The description is bullshit so yes, it should be removed. 18:53, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * It's speculation. We are not a crystal ball. Now please remove it, since policy prevents me from reverting. 20:14, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * I have and nothing of the like was said. It was just presented as something Zaros "might look like", so we know little more than that it's concept art. And idealiter, yes, but that isn't going to happen... 20:21, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * I modified the descriptions a bit, hopefully it'll satisfy you both. Also moved the chathead from the infobox, we aren't the Jagex wiki :P. 11:37, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * M'kay, added it back. Also, something I only just noticed: His second age form has the 6 eyes that his other image has! His mask has 6 eyeholes on it, and you can see them glowing on his incorporeal/shadow form. I'm probably really late. 12:06, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Seren and this elder god (probably the Freneskae creator-god have either a similar or the same symbol. 13:54, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded. 15:38, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, why did you add all those pointless thingies to Saradomin's alignment? Some of his followers associate those things with him, yeah, but they aren't his primary alignments. If we're gonna put every thing he's described as being there, we might as well put "good" and "hypocrite". Also also, this worries me. We had a discussion over having Philosophy instead of Alignment ages back and we decided against it (mainly due to things like "the dead" and "the sun" not being an alignment). Why are Also known as and Autonym above the image? It looks ugly. Why are the edit parameters next to things that are already filled in, and why is the width huge? 15:54, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say he values Wisdom just a little bit less than order, but it's still very much part of his beliefs, he's pretty much always referred to as the god of order and wisdom, wheras he's very rareful referred to as the god of light, wisdom, ect :P. 10:12, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Because most of them are referenced only one or two time, when Order and Wisdom are referenced dozens of time. Avoids the infobox being cluttered too. Tumeken is the god of Light/the Sun. 11:42, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

RE
Not to be rude, but I comment on discussions on my own terms. I don't like being specifically asked for input, so please don't. 13:58, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Damage
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that a 0-byte edit like this "damaged" anything. Literally *all* I did was manually change Leafy Greens' formatting back to how he had put it, rather than how you thought it should be. Maybe you should look at later edits, including your own, to see where any "damage" was done, as it is far more likely to be the fault of the visual editor you insist on using. 09:56, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * I got fed up of visual mode errors on my talk page after the last time you decided to use it to copy paste something, and so added a line of code that prevents visual mode from working. 10:13, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Did you know you can actually completely disable visual mode in your Preferences?

RE:Thingy
Google. It isn't actually that difficult to find. 12:10, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop uploading duplicate files. 12:51, January 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * I wasn't assuming bad faith, just wanted you to be more careful in future :P. 13:52, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

VE errors
My atrocious memory just prompted me to ask about a couple of edits you made with the new VisualEditor in case they were bugs: the spare * and #,  changing * to an # on the comment above you.

Hopefully you can remember these, if not don't worry.


 * Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear: were the changes I asked about in the linked edits intentional or unintentional? If they're unintentional I was meaning to send in a bug report for them, if not sending in the report is a wild goose chase

Zaroats
While I agree it was said, we have no actual proof or anything we can source, and Mod Jack refused to confirm that it was said or if it was true. Today, he said that some lore that a lot of people are basing stuff on was actually revealed by a Jmod was actually false. So it's probably better to be safe than sorry. 19:06, January 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * But we have no actual proof that this was ever said, we just have the accounts of some people who could be lying. And there's a chance that if this was said, they were wrong. Better to be on the safe side, isn't it? 20:03, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

Mahjarrat template
Why put Bill in the "alive" category when we don't know if he's alive or dead? If we have to list him as either dead or alive, the "deceased" category would arguably be the better option, as it's all but confirmed he died. 19:05, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Re:Zamorak
They don't win. You settle the damn edit war by talking it out, and if they're not replying, WAIT until they do so. Anymore wars like this and I'll have to consider permanently protecting other lore related pages. -- 22:26, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not waiting for anything. That page stays fully protected until you settle the dispute. -- 11:53, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * He did that so that the disputed attributed can't be changed without him having to protect the entire page.
 * On another note, comments like this are unacceptable. Particularly that first sentence. The tone of your entire response was disrespectful and sarcastic. Take a moment and think before you save the next time you're posting a comment in which you address another user.
 * 15:57, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * The same absolutely could be said about Fswe. I will be having a word with him later too. However that does not excuse you from being nice to people. 16:09, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * You're doing it again. And to right to my face? I really don't care how you think he's acting; I see no outstanding inappropriate conduct on his part. You, on the other hand, are insulting and debasing other users. That is unacceptable, and it needs to stop. 16:13, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fartwall isn't calling others a smartass. His behavior is by no means perfect; however, that doesn't make you innocent. Both of you suck at communicating respectfully to each other, but your attitude is sticking out more. I'm trying to give you a friendly warning, editor-to-editor. If this conduct continues, I'll summon an arbitrator. Yes, that is threat. Be nice. 18:14, February 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you're still being overly demeaning towards other editors. Per Mol, be nice to others. 14:31, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Calabri?
How did you get your userpage to be calabri? :o -- 17:58, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Zaros
Would "Unique" serve as an acceptable thing to go in the race parameter, seeing as JMods have sid he's unique many, many times? He definitely didn't have an original race in the conventional sense, he has always been what he is: a god. 14:30, March 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * We do know the answer though: He has no race. He is simply Zaros. But if we have to have his race named on the infobox (even though he doesn't have one) to have anything there at all, "God" would be the most accurate. Seriously, he literally has no race, in order to have one he would have to not be the only one of his kind to ever exist. Since he doesn't have one, "Zaros" is all that's need to describe him. 17:48, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Template
You might want to check those template links you just spammed, since I moved it before you started spamming. 16:38, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot you are English-deficient and therefore don't understand slang terms. I will try not to use these in the future. Also, I moved it before you added it onto any pages, as I already said, therefore there was nothing to fix when I moved it. I am so sorry I thought you would notice on your own that you were creating redlinks and make an attempt to investigate why. Or do you not use preview/check the edit you just made? 13:13, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

What?
What the hell do you think you're doing? Do you not know policies? -- 10:52, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Weakness
It's not a weakness. When you describe it as one, you're completely wrong, and you're changing the meaning to an arbitrary definition that favors your erroneous desire to have it listed. Weakness has already been defined already in hit chance; a weakness, when taken advantage of, will give you an increase to your accuracy. We have slightly modified the definition to allow for effects on damage, such as with blisterwood and silverlight; however, that is as far as it goes. That's all we recognize, and for practicality's sake, we don't immediately include every such weakness in the template. Even if these abilities could be considered a weakness, they are already documented clearly in the writing, and that is sufficient. What moreso proves my point is that they are only countered by these abilities, and only so when they are using their special attack. By listing these abilities as unqualified weaknesses, you are purporting that these attacks are always an advantage over the airut, when they're actually not. As a counter example, one of the Kalphite King's attacks is to be countered by using Provoke, but can you call that a weakness? No. The ability to counter an attack does not necessarily mean you're taking advantage of a weakness It'd be presenting false information, which we're not going to allow to happen. If, say, you could qualify it in the infobox, you'd be smooshing the text together, at which point it becomes pointless to even include it even in the parameter. So even if this was a legitimate weakness, it'd make no sense for us to have it in the infobox. You have multiple people disagreeing with you, and what you want isn't even possible with how the template is set up, so please kindly leave the parameter alone. 20:41, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't necessarily make it a weakness. They are not weak to the attack, but they become more vulnerable to the abilities when and only when they are using their special. It's less of a weakness, more of a strategy. As I already said, if the abilities are just in there as an unqualified weakness, the information we'd be presenting would be wrong; if we qualify it, the extraneous text defeats the purpose of the quickness of an infobox. Above all that, it is impossible to display them without making changes to the templates that I don't want made just for a single page. The compromise is already in place: the usage of these abilities is mentioned in the strategies section. It's just not practical to attempt to explain a vital part of strategies in an infobox. Tell me a good reason why a detailed explanation of a strategy in the article isn't good enough; how an ambiguous mention of it in the template is helpful. 15:52, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your edit on Abyssalbane bolts
Hi, I saw your question about abyssalbane :)

If you have low accuracy on abyssal demons when using royal bolts, bane's a better choice. If you don't have accuracy problems though, there's no need to use bane. (I melee abyssal demons actually because they're weak to melee :P)

In case you're interested, the J-mod post regarding bane ammo is here.

Also, bane's damage buff is currently bugged; it's dealing something between level 70-75 damage, not 75-80 :/ You can see details on post #59 of that thread. Logialian (talk) 06:50, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks right, but I think you'd still get better accuracy with the BGS (not sure though). Unless bane gets another buff, I think the BGS is better, but if you don't miss with abyssalbane you can use that instead.


 * BTW, if you want to help bane get fixed, you can support my thread ^^ You can also bump this thread :P Logialian (talk) 06:09, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Latin
It's not Latin. It's Infernal. What even is Latin? 13:45, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it doesn't exist. 15:03, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no such thing as "Latin". The demons' names are Infernal - not Ancient Dwarvish, not Wyvern, not Hfkjdfsdhuj and not Latin. 12:38, July 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as Latin. There happens to be a language like that in real life, and Infernal is a reference to that, but there is no Latin in-game. Stop being so headstrong... 13:12, July 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't you know? Infernal language is a reference to IRL Latin language, and their names happen to coincide with words in Latin, therefore they mean the same in Infernal. That doesn't mean Latin exists in RS. Also, a vandalism warning? Really? You're the one breaking 3RR. 15:01, July 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LATIN, HOW MANY TIMES TO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT. STOP BULLYING ME. 14:22, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

RS:TRIVIA
''If something is not an obvious reference, leave it out. If it is quite possible that a character, item, quest, or other object in the game is referencing multiple people, places, or events, do not include it. Only clear-cut references may be added.''

If something is based on an archetype, then anything else under that archetype can be considered similar. In this case, it's H.A.M. and the arbitrarily chosen KKK. The mod himself says they are similar, but that they are not based on the Klan in anyway that he can confirm. Stop adding the false trivia. 12:55, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, he's saying that if you are asking what something is a reference too, it probably isn't a reference. It's grasping at straws. Take for example, the ray. That reference is obvious, and, thus, I don't need to ask what it's a reference too. Now let's say I want to *find* a reference for Puffer. Well, first off, there isn't one, but I decide to ask myself "What is 'Puffed up.' a reference to?" That is the meaningless part. John even said that he can't confirm for certain whether they are or are not. Unless he can get in contact with that dev and get an absolute yes on the reference, then it's a stern no for adding that trivia. 13:08, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it really is an obvious reference. Have you never had to sing "Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do"? It's a very obvious reference. And you're trying to diminish the value of legitimate references as a means to strengthen the relative relevance of your weak link. I don't need to ask about the solfege because it so blatant. Anyone who has dabbled just slightly in music theory will understand the reference and make an immediate connection. It can also be linked directly to and only to that method of singing scale degrees. When you asked John, he said he can't confirm it as an obvious reference. Actually, he weakened any connection between the Klan and H.A.M. by stating that the H.A.M. aren't necessarily modeled after a particular group and rather an archetype. It's trivial from there that 2 groups following the same archetype will have some similarities. Had you made the connection that perhaps the H.A.M. were modeled after the, you'd probably receive the same response that they share similarities. The truism, "correlation does not entail causation" comes into play here. Yes, they are similar, but John said the correlation is attributable to the fact that they follow the same archetype, rather than the Klan directly inspiring the concept of the H.A.M. 14:18, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * You're starting to argue irrelevant semantics. All 3 of the mentioned groups follow the archetype of the classic hate group. John was obviously hesitant to make such a definite connection between two members of this archetype. You're trying to interpret his words in a way that defend the connection, even though nothing he said actually does. That's not legitimate trivia. 14:59, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * You're the only one adding the trivia. There is no standard procedure for where to discuss an issue with a page. If there's only 2 people involved, it can make sense to use user talk pages. 15:07, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * He made no definite connection. You're trying to boost the strength of "probably" to "certain". You are either misusing the word "literally" or misunderstanding what he meant. What it literally meant is more close to "I can't say that they were based on the KKK, particularly not entirely, but I can see where you can make the connection." His thing about "meaningless" was actually referring to both of your questions. It's not a case of me "not seeing something", that's more you. 15:17, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * I've grown tired of the argument. The people whom I asked for a second opinion all agree with there being no real connection, some of them even believe that the connection is inappropriate and not suitable for the wiki. 15:59, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

John A did not create the HAM, therefore he cannot say for certain what all they are based off of. Do not add it to the page. 17:36, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

RE:Mazchna
It was said by Mod Jack that he's a lesser demon. 12:20, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Gods
Osborne said that IN HIS OPINION, tier 7 beings are not really considered gods for the purposes of Sliske's game. The ACTUAL GAME says multiple times that Apmeken, Crondis ect are fully fledged gods, and indeed, they are divine entities on on the tiers of godhood that are worshipped by a significant portion of the desert, which does in fact make them gods. In game stuff > an off-hand remark by Mod Osborne anyway. Also, please review RS:3RR, because you seem to have completely forgotten that you cannot just revert reverts without any discussion whatsoever with the mere justification that "you're wrong and I'm right". 12:04, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Having a listen to the podcast again, he does actually refer to them as demi-gods, and says that they are "not what I would consider gods myself". At any rate, they are definitely not false gods like Lucien or Quin, since they are actually divine beings :P. 12:21, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * I did listen to it, he refers to it as the borders of godhood, that contains demigods, aspects of gods, ect. And that they are not what he would consider gods themselves. Netherless, they are on the tiers of godhood, and ingame information explicitly refers to them as gods. They are not in any way False Gods. Even if Osborne did definitely say that they are not gods (which he didn't), off-hand statements made by Osborne are not a reliable source of information, he has got numerous things wrong in the past (like Chaeldar being a Guardian of Guthix). All information in-game says that they are gods, and not having them on the god template, labelling them "false gods" and listing them amongst entities that aren't even composed of divine energy is just silly. 16:31, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

This edit
Did you make this edit whilst acknowledging what Mod Osborne personally said about them not being real gods in his opinion?