User talk:Leon Art







Welcome to my talkpage, !

Re:Het
Tumeken had a dream. Het was human. Because gods can dream about humans. Bad Tumeken! 15:37, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Fswe1/Archive thingy 16:37, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * Try copypasting the base code then decorating as you please? 18:04, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

RE:
Ha ha, better late than never, eh? Looking at the welcome, something must have gone wrong that day, most of the message is cut out! 03:33, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Re:5th (although that was 4th)
Yes, I agree with your point about Tuska's godhood. About Zaros' godhood, Mod Mark said that in his friend chat channel at march 26th if I'm not wrong. I don't have the exact quote but I have fragments that came after his statement. After that, he stated that Zaros could control a god like a puppet, even if they had a godsword (with a tone of humor as he was talking to the community). Here is the link to this statement: http://i.imgur.com/DeOmFhR. Thanks for coming to discuss and not despairingly reverting everything, you are one of the few that do that. 14:55, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Skargaroth
Skargaroth not wanting to be worshipped isn't mentioned in the memories whatsoever, only Tuska. The description of Skargaroth searching for battles likewise seems to be describing Tuska. Looking at a transcript of the first podcast, Tuska and Skargaroth are only mentioned once, and that's only to say they don't have god emissaries. 17:03, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * It definitely isn't in Above the Lore. I'll remove it from the page until you can provide a source. 08:07, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Moia
Please don't undo edits when you are unaware of policies regarding the offending content which was removed. Thanks, 04:14, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I probably should have explained in more detail. Our trivia policy has general guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable trivia. Despite the heading "trivia," minor glitches and miscellaneous facts are generally not allowed in the section. 16:31, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * The best feature (in my opinion) of rc patrol is the ability to use keyboard shortcuts. The shortcuts aren't documented though, which I guess they probably should be. I use it to go through all IP edits that happened during the day. I'll usually select 100 edits, all namespaces, and click the checkbox for anonymous edits. When I click submit, I'll have a list of the last 100 IP edits. If I use the left and right arrow keys in the command textbox, I can easily navigate back and forth between edits. The edits start with the earliest, so I can just press the right arrow key to go through the edits that happened during the day. If I see an edit that was vandalism, I can press 'r' to revert it quickly. If the edit wasn't the last revision on the page, I can press 'c' to see what changes have been made since then. Some other shortcuts are 'w' to warn the user with a dropdown list of templates, 'u' to undo the edit (you can provide a reason), and 'b' to block. Basically, I can go through hundreds of edits in just a couple of minutes with it, easily reverting any vandalism that was uncaught. Hope this makes sense. 22:31, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Tuska's Race
Race is for what they were originally, before they became a god. We don't know if she was always a boar-like creature, all we know is she was a boar-like creature when Guthix encountered her. For all we know, she could have been a bird-like thing that liked battle and one day ate an elder artefact, becoming a god, and then chose to adopt a form suited to her interest in battle. This wiki is not the place for speculation. 12:17, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Just because it's highly likely doesn't make it confirmed. Even if it is highly likely, we shouldn't present it as fact. 12:29, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, boar-like isn't a race, it's a description of her physical appearance. That's not what the sction is for. 12:31, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Alignment to philosophy

 * Hig hfives on our team work* :P 04:42, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Saradomin's Philosophy
Seems some FWE1 doesn't want it to be light, like his Emissary stated, because anotehr god "owns" Light Philosophy. I made a talk page article on Saradomin, talk in it if you wish.Kinglink15 (talk) 16:48, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

WE are talking in there about his philosophy his Emissary stated his new one, She said "Light and Order." If you agree with me or not please go to Saradomin talk page.Kinglink15 (talk) 10:29, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why. My latest edit combined the views of both discussing parties, so it should be solved now. 14:17, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Re:God's template
Because we don't need endless navboxes. Navboxes, unlike articles, are for navigating easily between articles of similar nature/contents, and as such should be to the point. Adding a cat who claims to be Zaros or a Mahjarrat whom an insane housemaid who miraculously got stuck in the Shadow Realm claims to be a god doesn't really add. We might as well add Lucien and the Dragonkin too. In fact, they are actually confirmed to be nearing godhood. 14:28, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhm... We KNOW that Saradomin is the god of all three things. I don't see how adding all three to the infobox AND lead sentence could cause any harm, as it satisfies both parties. 14:34, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * If an emissary doesn't say he is the god of wisdom it doesn't mean he isn't. And examine texts are canon, since KGP does in fact stand for Killer Gentoo Penguin, just to name something. 14:49, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Aye, I've read it. Also, Julienne does not say Saradomin participated in the Naragi God Wars. By your logic, that should be assumed non-canon as well. All I'm saying is that the emissaries aren't holy books you should follow by the word. 15:20, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Edit pendant table
It should have been lowercase since its not a proper noun and it's not capitalized in-game. 15:41, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Lol
Normal unseen Typo DX *slashes at Typo Fariy*  Kinglink15 (talk) 20:26, May 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Also how do I make my signature to look like yours?Kinglink15 (talk) 20:44, May 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks man :P


 * How?


 * No... not really, do I really need it?


 * Nvm, I think I got it. 01:53, June 1, 2013 (UTC)



You know, your Signature looks different than before O.O. 04:41, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thannks ;P but seems you're background has to much...light, where the name doesn't show. 15:28, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I notices, thanks. And what I mean is, that I can't see the name at all, the background of it is like, white. 15:37, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope u also don't mind that I got some things I saw off you're page, think u can link me where they at, or how to get them? 16:23, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Almighty, thanks, also U follow Guthix teaching, and u are godless :o? JOIN MY CLAN FELLOW :D 16:52, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Re: join my clan
So you own a clan also? 17:14, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * oh, Join my clan then :P, I'll let u keep that rank, plus my clan is a privet rp clan mostly :P 17:22, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * aww, ok :( 17:35, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright lol, add me on rs? my name on it is in my Page :P 17:47, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup, and ok, added u. 17:51, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Wahisietel
Yes, I still have to do the Curse of Arrav, Temple at Senntisten, Ritual of the Mahjarrat and World Wakes sections. I'll do some more tommorow, although I guess the template could be removed for now. 18:36, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Random fact
On a related note to Talk:Radiant alchemist's amulet, patches that have one of the new farming plants growing in them are full of weeds in NIS. Not sure if there is anything else to check atm (don't have a shining alchemist's amulet to check that; and the Fragment pieces on NIS are simply those from September (jagex recycled the ingame item, and slightly recoloured the fragments). IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 11:13, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Zamorak's Book, and its emphasis on Chaos
From what you're saying, it sounds like we're agreeing, but you're removing it anyway. Could you explain your reasoning a little more clearly, please? Snowskeeper---Till Hell Freezes Over. (talk) 16:09, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Wait, you're trying to indicate that destruction is involved as well? Well, it is, but only insofar as it supports Chaos--his Chaos is then used to support Creation, which is also a part of Chaos and which he also seems to support. Snowskeeper---Till Hell Freezes Over. (talk) 16:11, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Reason:
Erm...*The God Letters were made to clarify and add the lore* in the past and not to align with it (even because nearly no lore existed). Some things are still canon as I said, and I don't understand your message at all... What in the world are you trying to mean? 18:15, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

God-letters are non-canon, and should not be used as proof for anything. They say as much in the pages they're on, on the Runescape website. Snowskeeper---Till Hell Freezes Over. (talk) 18:19, June 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * I am actually voting for their replacement if the quote is canon (@Snowskeeper). And Leon Art, sorry I really tried to understand both of your messages but I just can't. The God Letters' articles were both sources of lore and places for entertainment, much like the postbags. There are things with no sense which can be identified *very* easily, that was not canon even for the time they were released, these were to provide fun and a distraction to readers. The true lore part was mentioning Zaros, explaining Gielinor and things like that. That is what have been considered at the time they were released. Today, most of the things that had to be considered are not canon but some of these things are still true, such as the fear of Saradomin at Zaros' return, Runescape being a nickname for Gielinor, the names of the gods, etc. I was telling Snowskeeper and Kinglink15 to replace this valuable lore with other sources and not remove them at sight, not to keep them in articles. 20:00, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * It says, on the pages, at the top of the page above all the letters, that they should not be considered canon and that they are SOLELY for entertainment purposes. Using them as a source of lore and quotes is, therefore, not a thing we can do here. It certainly isn't valuable information, unless incorrect information is valuable now. Snowskeeper---Till Hell Freezes Over. (talk) 20:06, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

RE: Zaros is the strongest!
He said this at the end of march, I think I already gave you the link and everything before. This was after The World Wakes quest. To clear up, Mod Mark was referring to him in the present. 20:03, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, Mod Mark said everything that day. 20:12, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said..........."To clear up, Mod Mark was referring to him in the present." Mod Mark was talking about him in the present not in the past. About "losing a lot of power", Viggora says the stab of the staff of Armadyl only weakened Zaros at the time, he didn't lose significant amount of power, probably because it didn't spent too much time draining his power as he left his body right after. About the godsword by Mod Mark's part, he was supposing any of the young gods wielding a godsword, not saying that they did at some point. 20:36, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * God...Please read more carefully. I never said Zaros was more powerful, I never said Zaros has the same amount of power, Zaros was banished during the God Wars, I said that he can defeat the god he chooses to and for that is the strongest... Mod Mark was referring to Zaros in the present when he said that....not to Zaros in the fourth age, third age, second age or whatever. 22:05, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I beg you to read more properly. Zaros was not on Gielinor at the Third Age, when the god wars occurred. Plus, Mod Mark didn't say he needed a godsword to do that. About you saying he lost at least 1 tier, you didn't present source and that's speculative. And it wasn't a joke, it was source, it reinforces what Viggora says but at the present time. 10:40, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Again I beg you to read more properly. Zaros didn't participate in the god wars (he didnt send troops to fight during god wars or anything similar) but Zarosians did by pure option. Much like Seren with elves. The conflict stated in the book of sliske didn't happen during the Third Age, it was the Second Age when Zaros was attacking the desert... And no I'm not trolling evidently. 13:12, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Definite source
You're better off asking Ben or Fswe for source links. I listened to one of those Above the Lore podcasts and hated it due to the amount of mumbling. Could you leave post-defeat speculation off the Zaros page though, please, at least until you have the source? 20:46, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Zaros Tier:
Why did you remove his Tier? I can understand the color, but why the Tier? 21:06, June 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * In Runezone They stated "Guthix and Zaros were Tier two, Guthix bring a more powerful." WE don't know how low his tier is now, and we shouldn't speculate at all. 10:29, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Redirects
Special:DoubleRedirects. 18:32, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * There are details of all tiers of auras, but apparently we only had supreme so I added them back to the page. Also the switch template works fine for me. If you're previewing a page then it won't show up, though. Also I linked you the double redirects because they are from your page moves. Go fix them. (: Click "edit" on the left ones, then copy/paste whatever is at the right-most onto the redirect page. So edit the Greater Corruption page, and replace #REDIRECT Greater corruption with #REDIRECT Corruption . 18:50, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Edict on the God pages
Talk:Gods might be a better place to discuss it. Doesn't matter too much though. 18:34, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Harold
Well, it's currently named based on his in-game name, which is what we use for articles. You could make a request on RS:RFM I guess. Being bold is fine, but sometimes some people might not agree with what you do. Don't worry though, it's nothing bad. 19:17, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the talk page would be better. 19:20, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Ocellus
Source please? I don't think it's ever been stated he is a guardian of order. =) 19:21, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/1984-Big-Brother.jpg

14:02, June 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * I prefer Hitler to Obama tbh 14:51, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * FOR BIG BROTHER POSTERS OF COURSE, wouldn't want anyone to misinterpret this 14:52, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * lrn2signature 14:56, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Justification for this edit?
-- 08:35, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * But are the facts presented in the exerpt untrue? -- 08:41, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * This was highly inappropriate. One, people are obviously disagreeing with you, so removing the section entirely and claiming "k no compromise" is an act of (edit) war. Two, there is content in the section you removed entirely that has nothing to do with what you're disputing. From the behavior in that edit alone, if I were a neutral sysop, I would probably issue you a short block for edit warring. As it is, I'm getting neutral sysops involved in this little dispute. -- 08:49, June 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edit has been reverted, and the page protected. Please do not just remove content you don't agree because you don't get your way. Just because it come from a god letter does not automatically make it untrue.


 * Please voice your opinion on how God letters should be used in articles here. Hopefully we cancome to some sort of agreement.

Edit warring
This is a warning informing you that if you engage in an edit war over content with another user within the next month, you will be blocked from editing with a duration of one week. Here, edit war is defined as reverting another users revert of an addition/removal you made or inciting another user to do the same. Any disputes about content must be taken to their respective talk pages and disputed additions/removals must achieve consensus for the change before the article may be edited to reflect this. Note that this warning is being issued as the result of multiple disputes that have been improperly handled by many editors, and you are not being personally singled out. 17:14, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Sara Sword
Because it's a confirmed bug and will be fixed next week. Plus, it means the actual image of how the sword is supposed to look is on its page. 18:04, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Because how it currently looks is a bug. 18:41, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Desysop
Desysop = to remove one's sysop (administrator) tools, as did not happen with Ansela due to consensus (ish). 17:34, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * To further this explanation, sysop is shorthand for system operator or more commonly known as admins. The two terms are interchangeable as far as wikis go. To sysop someone it to give them admins tools (block, delete, etc.). A desysop is the opposite of that.

Your userpage
Hey, I've temporarily protected your user and talk page cause there seems to be a vandal out after you and I have no idea how to do a range block. It's a temporary measure that will be undone (hopefully) once we've dealt with the vandal 01:05, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * They've been blocked and your pages unprotected 01:25, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Seren
Sup, long time no see huh? I am concerned and confused, could ya quote me where it is confirmed that Seren is a LGBT? Friends of mine saw it and looking for proof but can't find it. 16:17, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Nvm I found it. 16:21, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * More like Mind-fuck if you ask me. 08:58, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * That what shocked me, Seren being (maybe) a dude before being a god. 09:06, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Wiki page for sources
Cam's lore project is doing that. =3 09:43, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Re:skill clickpic
Yeah, they do look the same (skill clickpic uses [skill]-icon as its image), but clickpic adds a link to the skillpage as well, which is why I prefer it wherever the skill icons are used (with the exception of the skills' pages, where the link is redundant). 14:00, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Please help me understand
Well, considering it has been argued over for the past week as to whether Zaros can be described as evil, it could be said that you and Fswe were both in violation of 3RR. Also, which admin refuses? And can you please check the links you post? I had two links to your edit and I was a bit confused until I looked at the page history. I originally thought I was being accused of 3RR :s

As for the content of the reference, it is a little... weasly. It suggests there are several different interpretations of what Zaros represents, controlling is seemingly the main focus this. Beyond that, Mod Osborne appears to say evil and emptiness are often associated with Zaros, but this is an effect of his controlling nature, that they are just interpretations of his actions rather than what he represents. However, good an evil are both subjective terms when it comes to defining the gods. Zamorak was originally deemed evil and Saradomin good when the game was in it's early stages iirc. I would try to stay away from such absolute terms when defining a god's associations regardless of jagex statements.

Nty
You're assuming that I give a fuck. Now please, kindly get your pseudo-officials to ban me or whatever they do this day when they have their heads up their arses. 11:01, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Just drop the false intellectualism... It makes you look as stupid as you would be without it. 11:41, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Stop
Do not involve yourself in something this stupid. 12:41, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Leak
It's the RuneScape 3 BTS Video. Kara will be showing up at the Battle of Lumbridge, which is part of RuneScape 3. How is concept art of RuneScape 3 being shown in a RuneScape 3 Behind the Scenes video a leak? Jagex intentionally put that screenshot there, there for it is not a leak. /thread. 19:22, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, from the Leaks article: "Things that are not classed as leaks: Behind the Scenes videos or posts 19:24, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Aviantese
Please stop intentionally adding false information. The plural of Aviansie is Aviantese. There's no separate name for the race or any of that nonsense. As for slayer tasks, Jagex use shared Java script to automatically add an S to monster names, it seems ("cyclops" → "cyclopss"). Now please read through RS:3RR and refrain from edit warring. 19:48, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems to work correctly on some slayer monsters... Anyway, "aviansies" is still rubbish. 19:55, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * ...I'm not even going to respond to that. To the matter at hand, I believe Aviantese was stated ages ago in Temple of Ikov. Either way, "aviansies" is a common mistake and Jagex often make it in recent updates. That doesn't make it correct. 11:33, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to dignify the obvious attempt to put me in a bad light over nonsense by responding to it, sorry. In addition, the Jagex wiki also says "aviantese". 12:38, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider repeatedly doing the same action, despite reverts, edit warring, albeit in good faith. 13:03, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Could've checked the page history/talk page to see that it had been added and removed multiple times already. 13:18, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * * sigh* Fine. My refusal to discuss the Zaros revert was because it had already been discussed as well as added+removed three or four times. The Aviansie thing was simply not true. I'm not trying to be mean here, but perhaps it would be advisable to be a bit more, uh, careful. As for myself, I have worked in accordance to every policy (not that you've broken any). Also, had you not edited, I would not have reverted. Simple. Now please forget this matter... 13:36, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Rune guardian
We don't do disambigs for two articles, we have confuse for that. ;) 15:26, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally. 15:30, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

Why did you move it to (Rune Mechanics) and not just (pet) or something? Why even move it at all tbh? 14:41, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

Re:God symbols
http://images.wikia.com/runescape/images/1/1f/Emoticon-Facepalm.gif I'll let you realise your mistake… 11:48, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * http://images.wikia.com/runescape/images/1/1f/Emoticon-Facepalm.gif
 * If I were you, I'd start by taking a few seconds to actually look at the upload history of the files in question, rather than needlessly asking the wrong person the wrong questions. 12:07, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * An apology would have been appreciated >_> 11:51, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Bandos
No, it's not been released at all. I have no idea how he looks. 21:10, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was me. I only know he has been updated to look very different from OoG, but this concept art has not left the confines of Jagex HQ. ;) 11:31, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Black Ibis LvL
Hey Leon, just a heads up that Black Ibis can be found before the last room. i.imgur.com/rT9k5uh.jpg I'm not sure how the room level requirement affects teh outcome of finding ibis, or if it does. 15:10, August 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish that screenie was mine... Have you gotten any Ibis, just curious. 16:42, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Disambig > guide
A disambig page is a list of pages that a term can refer to. If people want to know more about one of the links they click on it. You were turning the page into a one-stop-guide on the SoF masks instead. 16:11, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

RE
Update:Q&A: The Death of Chivalry 19:20, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Your spelling
If you know you have trouble spelling things, use a spellchecker set to British English. And there's still no excuse for misspelling a word when there is already an example of it on the page. 21:07, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

No
WGS was the one I meant ;-) To be honest I hate voice acting, it's usually very cringey and amateuristic. DoC did have somewhat good voice acting, at least for Sir Owen. 09:23, August 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * My main problem with voice acting is that the player is not voice acted, which makes it feel a lot more forced and less natural. Of course that's better than forcing a voice upon the player. 19:37, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

redirecting
You need to stop trying to use the visual editor to make redirects because you never make them properly. 17:18, August 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be smarmy, you can ask what you need to do to fix your problems, or you can just stop. 17:43, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * #REDIRECT PAGENAME where PAGENAME is the name of the page you want the redirect to go to, e.g. Ghouls to Ghoul. And don't copy paste it in Visual editor, because that will drag across the coding for the page where you copied it from; font family, size and colour, bolding and italics and page background colour included. Hope that helps. 17:48, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

Referencing
There is no need to copy the same references over and over. Use NamedRef 20:57, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's already there... RuneScape:Style guide/References and citations 21:04, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

Re: No More Clan
That's Right, I am Clanless now :P oh also, seems my signature symbol that had godless disapeared, help? lol. 21:06, August 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * -Shrugs- My godless Symbol on my Signature is missing, help me in this idk how to put in the new one. 21:10, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Signature
Yup!!, I need to learn how to do that, because I wanna add Guthix Symbol replacing the one on the left. 21:24, August 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup, I did it! I am Awesome!:D 15:52, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Gods
...lol! XD Seriously though, what are you talking about? I've never removed that table, I only corrected some references and punctuation in that edit. You seem to be confusing me with someone else. 08:10, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't remove it. I merely suggested to remove it. No offence, but it seems to me you undid my edit without even looking at it. 08:40, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, just make sure to look a bit better next time.  10:05, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your edit warring with other editors on lore-related pages has gotten really tiresome. I don't want to repeatedly have to protect articles just for a few users who cannot reach an agreement. I understand that you want the articles to contain the most accurate and up-to-date information, but it has reached the point where progress is not being made due to the sheer amount of conflict between users. Please refrain from edit warring in the future as I will be forced to take action and block any involved parties if this continues. Thanks, 08:09, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Naragi God
No, it really doesn't say ANYTHING of important. All it says is that he died. HE DIED!? OMFG Wow. How did you manage to stretch that into 800 bytes? 22:36, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * It says he died. That's all it says. And you're using it to list things we don't know. 22:39, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * You also need to follow RS:UTP. I'll give you that I was a little abrasive, but that absolutely does not justify insulting me the way you did. 22:41, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * My answer is that you like stretching a statement out of nothing. There is so much useless drivel in what you wrote. It can easily be simplified to "There was a Naragi god that died." Everything you had beyond that was useless. 22:54, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * No. That is absolutely not true at all and you know it. I meant we can remove most of it because most of what you added was we don't know what happened and we don't know if this. That's not encyclopedic material, it's useless. 23:05, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * very little is known about a mysterious and unnamed Naragi god, that lived prior to Guthix ascension
 * It is unknown if there this Naragi god was alive
 * whether Saradomin knew about this god
 * Okay. So all we know is the god was there and died. Also, don't ever use "till" in your writing again. 23:23, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally, it's not bad. But when 90% of the information is about lack of knowledge, it is. "Till" is informal speech, don't use it. Ever. 23:58, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of listing one by one what is not known, list what is known then add "Nothing else is known about this god or its interactions."; As for "till": if you know that word, how do you not know about "until"? >.>... 13:48, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

You can add some of that info on Gods, but I don't think there's enough known for a standalone article. 22:52, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Zamorak
State a reason for your reverts please. Also, what you said wasn't even true; Zamorak cannot be considered benevolent because he wants chaos and destruction to achieve his goals. 10:35, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he cannot be considered benevolent at all. Even is his goals are, his means (chaos) are outright evil. And of course Moia and Moldark and stuff praise him; but they're biased. Just like Julienne and Padomenes are wrong saying Saradomin is the "one true god" - it's just propaganda (also, Moia has daddy issues and Moldark is a fat old man). 12:48, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Moia and Moldark and many players consider him benevolent.. Therefor he can be considered benevolent. 12:59, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Zamorak preaches strength through chaos. He thinks that spreading chaos helps mortals break out of their patterns and create a better society. He means well, ie he is benevolent. Have you even read his god book, Fswe? 13:07, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * I am pretty Sure it was stated that Zamorak isn't evil. His means and goal may seem evil, but their misunderstanding. 15:27, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * "Benevolent" implies a universal and unwavering kindness or ambition to be moral/good. It's not a proper word here except quoting (these quotes are just bias on his followers' parts). Zamorak knows his goal and if he plans to accomplish it by any means necessary (which I'm fairly sure is the case), then he is not benevolent. 15:37, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * "Benevolent: Well meaning and kindly." Your definition is too.. strongly put I think. We do not know his intentions (fully) we do not know that of anybody, and certainly a personal guess does not cut it. As a member of the Godless, I also don't trust his motives/intent, but that's not the case. We can only comment on Zamorak based on what he says himself or what his followers say. It all comes down to the point that we need to stay neutral. Basically, personal moral judgments doesn't work well, unless Jagex says it is so, and Jagex have said they want to give real choices to people (although, with the possible exception of Bandos), see Fswe1's talkpage with my initial comment on Zamorak if you wish to read more. -- 17:30, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a literal definition, what's important is connotation. If we don't know his true motives, then we certainly cannot say he's benevolent. Also, himself and his NPC followers are about as biased as it gets. It's fine to elaborate on how his followers view him as benevolent, but to state it as if it were objective fact is wrong. 17:34, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * "Also, himself and his NPC followers are about as biased as it gets" - so a Saradominist or Zarosian account is much more trustworthy? "to state it as if it were objective fact is wrong" the article doesn't state that nor should it, it states only that he could be. That is a correct and just assessment if you ask me. If you read my comment on Fswe1's talk page you might understand my point of view: Zamorak has had a long history of being portrayed as evil (mostly by their ideological counter part (Saradomin/ists) but also by "his own followers" like Evil Dave), Jagex made it clear they want to break with this few (where Sara=good, Zammy=Evil, Guthix=naive tree-hugger), as with Sara (TWW & DOC) they too intent to give Zammy more depth as a character. I think wikia should respct their artistic wish and make sure there is a break with this long standing view of Zammy=evil. Based on this discussion you can probably see how deeply rooted that conception is, and therefore, how important it could be to state that he is not necessarily evil but may just have a benevolent idea that is radically/fundamentally different from a Saradominst concept. If you want evil - Mod John A appointed Bandos, Mod Osborne thought Tuska could be a good pick, but Zamorak has been mentioned to have a real and viable philosophy where you can get behind.  17:45, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, google's definitions are good for a basic idea of what a word means, but if you want a real definition, use either Wiktionary or a well renowned dictionary like Merriam Webster.  17:37, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * You may call me biased, but in both your dictionary suggestions I find my first definition to be closer to both of them than I find yours. However, this is besides the point. If you want to have somesort of philosophical discussion about Zamorak and his "alignment", I welcome you with open arms, it's a very interesting topic. But I don't think it's very fruitful or useful for the discussion Fswe1 and I started. I think Jagex reasons (the ones I just stated) settle it, pretty much. Please tell me where you disagree. 17:52, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying "he could be benevolent" is not encyclopedic. Reword it to say "His followers view him as benevolent" and expand from there. I never said he's evil, I just said don't call him benevolent. There's also no problem with saying that a misconception exists which purports him to be evil. Does this clear things up? Everything make sense now? 17:49, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion, but I wonder... why is the first not encyclopedic?  17:52, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's wishy-washy, ambiguous, and practically speculation that just minces the truth. The best way to go with this is state he is misconstrued as an evil god and probably continue with a paragraph that's along the lines "Zamorak's followers view him as benevolent because blahblahblah as evidenced by Bob Loblaw..." I'm sure you get the idea now. It's not that we want to remove the bias of his followers (at least not in this particular case), but we want to present it properly; as their view, rather than give it merit and call it the certain truth. 17:56, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

According to Merriam Webster, encyclopedic means: Encyclopedia means: I don't see how it was not encyclopedic. And to state that Zamorak is only benevolent in the eyes of his followers, is to not do justice to the legacy of ages Jagex what to break - mind you: this was said mulltiple times. Added to that...I would like to say again that it is not said without doubt that Zamorak is benevolent, but that this is merely a (more or less likely) possibility. To not make this clear is to actually introduce bias, which is probably favouring Saradominists - something Jagex certainly wants to stop as Saradomin is often seen as the God of Good. 18:17, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * of, relating to, or suggestive of encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject
 * a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively (comprehensive means: completely or broadly/having or exhibiting wide mental grasp) a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject.
 * Are you seriously going to argue a definition? LOL 22:05, August 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Saradomin Is not the god of good, it was stated it depends on the followers view on them, but originally Saradomin is not the god of good he is the god of order and wisdom, good isn't near where he is. Sure he is seen that by his followers but I agree with Mol the way you wish to use the word is misguided. 22:10, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mole, I obviously am asking for the definition of a word when I don't understand how you seem to interpret it differently. You basically opened to conversation about a definition, because I react to people's questions and statements - seems logical to me. Let me ask you concretely: do you agree with my statement (this one: To not make this clear is to actually introduce bias, which is probably favouring Saradominists - something Jagex certainly wants to stop as Saradomin is often seen as the God of Good). 11:49, September 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, when did I tell you to reference a dictionary for any and every part of an argument?... I'm done speaking with you; just use the agreed upon outline. 17:38, September 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Never, but I also didn't. So stop crying about that.. it also doesn't help your argument one bit. But I have to say, it's nice to see you agree with the most of us that it's not necessary to change. 09:14, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Saradomin
No, it's because you added stuff about Saradomin destroying Askroth to a section that speaks about how he does stuff for the greater good, when even Saradomin himself says that he was just having a tantrum when he destroyed Askroth. 11:57, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * You added his stuff on the Naragi homeworld as a "source" for him doing things for the greater good, despite it being irrelevent. 13:20, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * "In order to achieve what he aims for, order, Saradomin is willing to use methods that could be regarded as ethically inappropriate or even outright evil by his followers, such as the Naragi genocide (as mentioned in the Guthixian Memories and spoken about during The Death of Chivalry quest)." How does that not imply the Naragi genocide was a result of Saradomin wishing to achieve order? It reads as if it's as an example of what he does to achieve order, the stuff about him not necessarily being good is in a different sentence. 08:54, September 3, 2013 (UTC)]
 * Furthermore, when the section about him doing questionable stuff to achieve order was removed due to lacking a source, you added it back with information about how he razed Askroth, despite said information being irrelevant, and not a source for Saradomin doing things for the greater good. 08:57, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't know why I bother arguing with you. It feels like talking to a brick wall. 10:21, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm past the point of caring. 10:28, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue. 10:36, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Because no matter what I say you aren't going to change your opinion, and no matter what you say, I'm not gonig to change mine, so it's an exercise in futility. Plus the issue was resolved even before we started arguing... -- 10:43, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Re:CiteGeneral
Hm... theoretically, yes, even I could do that, but it would require a separate parameter for this particular episode, and it would need to be filled in exactly how the time is incorporated into the video URL, which I doubt many people would manage to do. Generally, it's not impossible, but seems like a lot of trouble with very little profit, especially considering scrolling to the approximately correct time is a matter of seconds. 19:45, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Aura images
The reason I was changing the aura images was because a lot of the detail files were showing up here. Some of the files don't have corresponding pages, so I was hoping you could find a way to fix this. Thanks, 16:00, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Re:File:Full.gif.png
Get someone to oculus you in the outfit instead of using the photobooth and cribbing the result from the adv log? 19:48, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I said "instead of". 08:17, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * The tenses of the green parts don't even match. 08:26, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Parents
"parent" stems from the Latin word "parens" (parent-), which means - surprise! - "parent", id est either gender. 13:55, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Show 'em. =P 15:31, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Re:!!!
What? You said it was ok :D 12:52, September 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Because Saradomin was winning the first few 10 minutes I logged on, and as Kara said, we can either join the winning side, and end the battle quicker to stop the world from suffering, or balance it out and make them both go boom. I picked to finish it fast. After all, we got Godless spies in each camp no? 13:40, September 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's just the battle, it's like a few weeks battle going on in lore wise (or a month and a half.) They just improve power a bit, that's all. And yes, Kara said that, you can check it if you like. 14:03, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Vyrewatch membership
That's why I put In the Darkmeyer disguise, they believe this user to be a Vyrelord. :3 15:50, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

YUP! 01:54, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

Rare drop table
Hello, Leon Art. You added a rare drop to Jelly, which has access to the rare drop table. This creates duplicate entries for drops. If you are unsure if a monster has access to the rare drop table or if a drop is on the table, check the bottom of the monster's drops list. If it has access to the rare drop table it will be located there. Remember: You do not need to be wearing a ring of wealth to gain access to the drop table; this only improves the chances of a better drop. Thank you. 11:01, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Surula
So why not just mention that taking a voyage from Surula grants a free reroll? Your wording made it sound like she'd only just started taking up the third slot 18:47, September 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added in that taking the voyage grants an extra voyage without all the fluff about how she takes up the third slot. Bit of advice: only mention what has changed, do not mention something if it hasn't changed 19:21, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Portent page
"nbsp" stands for "non-breaking space" and is generally used as a special HTML character "&amp;nbsp;", being replace by a ... non-breaking space ^^. However, as we have a bot that clears visual editor mess-ups, amongst which the non-breaking space, it was put into a template. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 04:51, September 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * Robots, in the software sense; although managed by an actual human user of the wiki. For example User:TyBot and User:TyA. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 06:08, September 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * The line between "human using software" and "software running autonomously" is incredibly thin. A bot can strictly be either. The former would be someone pressing "run" on a bot's script, while the latter is the bot (or the computer system) triggering the script automatically. The end result could be the same. The software does whatever it is programmed to do... For the wiki's case, it can clean up articles (the syntax usually); it could revert vandalism automatically, etc. Why a different account? The accounts have a "bot-flag" which makes their edits not show up in Recent Activity by default. But I'm sure there are other people around who can explain their use on wikia much more clearly and concretely. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 07:03, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

RE:February
Lol, sure. 07:00, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

RE: Mahjarrat quotes
You can use notes= to write notes on the reference, but tbh it's unnecessary most of the time, most quotes are self explanatory. Feel free to add them if you wish though. 11:52, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Brassica Prime
Nah, it's because Guthix allowed him to stay. I think Osborne said so in the TDoC Q&A or a livestream, but I'm not sure. 13:54, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * No. 15:34, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Asterisk
Not entirely sure. I believe it has something to do with the reference not being verified (id est how recent it is). I think it was due to the accessdate parameter being named date. Or something. You should ask Cam, I guess... 13:50, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Switch Templates
There doesn't need to be a discussion policy wise on the usage of a switch template. However, it isn't necessary as the only difference is in the image itself for the Imcando pickaxe. No switch templates load properly in the two mobile skins that exist (both Wikia applications and the mobile skin). I didn't rollback the edit, I just removed the excess as there is enough room in the 660 pixels allotted to articles for both images at once. I personally hate all articles that use the switch template. 15:15, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Switch template isn't needed on the page in question. 18:14, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Realms
By messing up I only meant the Infernal Dimensions part. :P You also undid some stuff like putting Abbinah in the alphabetically correct place. To respond to your edit summary

"also hobgoblins are crossbreeds but unknown where first made" - sounds like speculation too... The only crossbreeds we know of are fayrgs and raurgs. Hobgoblins are simply "agile guerilla goblins". 07:15, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * "E.g. Britain is part of the Human realm," - is it? That's speculation. Treat it as a separate realm until we get confirmation.
 * "and the Gorak plane doesn't need to have the label Goraks inhabit it.. that's overly clear :-/" - irrelevant - for consistency either all or none should have their "main" race stated.

Jagex said the opposite actually, they said that the human realm was NOT Earth. May have been in the lore reddit thing or a campfire, I cna't remember which. 15:04, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with Scarabas
If the quest Dealing with Scabaras is short in the infobox, why is it long in the overview down the page? Latias[http://mcplayers.wikia.com/wiki/LTS_Redstone_Co. 12]90 17:54, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Help me understand please
About this: 1. Having different templates start on new lines does not add spacing to the page itself (as long as there is not an empty new line in between), but does improve readability when editing the source of the page. 2. The I added removes an additional space at the top of the page, that is a result of using a switch info box. Compare where the first paragraph starts in my revision, and the previous one. (In my revision it starts at the top of Owen's chathead, while previously it started about half-way down his head).

And regarding this: 0. See 1. above. 1. This is what I see with your Sic + the extra line of text; in blue I indicated your extra line that should only appear as a tooltip, but for some reason is added as actual text. 2. It's actually still the same template, but with a different parameter. Your version has the line "This article is about the veteran adventurer found in Lumbridge." twice, immediately below one another; that just looks (and reads) bad(ly). Regards, IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 14:08, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Wut
My Russian is perfect, I speak a few words of Italian and I know literally nothing about Hindi. I don't see why this is related to my correcting a typo, though... (hence the heading title) 18:17, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure if serious or trolling. Also, I'm fairly sure 99.999% of all keyboards are qwerties. 20:10, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant English keyboards - still, Spanish or German ones are almost the same, save a few characters (ñ, ß, etc.). Additionally, some interpunctional characters are different from English ones (like slashes, question and exclamation marks or apostrophes). But they are the same in general. Obviously this doesn't apply to languages who don't utilise the Latin alphabet. Id omne dictum, why are we discussing the types of keyboards? 06:29, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * So, next time, I should leave a typo on the grounds that it may have been made due to a different kind of keyboard? 12:22, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * ...does it matter? 14:42, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * We've been talking about keyboards because I came up with a semi-funny (i.e. deliberately not funny, making it pseudo-funny) edit summary of my own rather than using one of the custom ones, which I, by the way, cannot remember having ever done? Bit of a waste of time. At any rate, I'm going to Rome in a few hours. Drop this. Please. 18:38, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

RE:My Pages
Check here. 15:35, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Re: on advice of Fswe
Firstly, sorry for accidentally deleting your talk page. My fastdelete buttons decided to load as I clicked on leave message. I might try to modify the script at some point to reduce the chances of it happening.

Secondly, sorry for taking so long to reply. I'm in the progress of rebuilding my laptop, and it may be a while before everything is working correctly again.

Regarding the asterisks, I'm not sure. It's nothing we've customised on the wiki as far as I can tell. There's certainly nothing that relates to it in CiteGeneral. I suspect it's part of the extesion itself, but I'm not sure what behaviour would trigger it. Perhaps Wikipedia's extensive help pages document it, but I can't find any mention of it anywhere. I'll ask around Wikia's skype channel next I'm on to see if anyone there has come across it before.

http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Dragonhide?curid=12290&diff=9108430&oldid=8108776
Please use the correct capitalisation and spellingas shown in-game (i.e, our page names). Eg, it's "Red d'hide body" not "Red Body". 12:00, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * So? Use the in-game names. We are a wiki, not a slang dictionary. 12:09, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

RE: Korasi's Sword
I found that image over on Graphical updates/Items 14:27, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

MPD post quest dialogue
Hi Leon. Should I post on your talk page, or continue the discussion on my talk page in future? I have only recently started editing again so I am afraid I have forgotten.

On Wahiesetel; I first picked the Option 'I'd like to talk about the citadel'. Then the option 'I'd like to talk about what happened at the empyrean citadel'. He replies 'I was happy to learn that you supported the Empty Lord while debating with the gods. I'm sure he is aware of your deeds', 'Sliske may be acting recklessley but at least you remained calm and dedicated to Zaros.' You then have options of asking him about Zaros, Sliske, Stone of Jas, etc. Perhaps this only appears to those who sided with Zaros.

Cheers buddy -- 17:51, October 17, 2013 (UTC)

Did you side with the Zarosians in TWW? Mod Ollie has said the option would only appear if you did! Selecting the Zaros option gave me a message about feeling an odd sensation/chill down my spine -- 16:08, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I am only cb stats slightly above 80, and I managed to do BoTD - I found it was easiest to complete with mage. I died loads, but I realised that the most important thing is stunning abilities for the boss fight, if that helps. And I have supported Zaros since 08/09 (when my signature was made!) - I genuinely believe that following Zaros is the best choice for the adventurer. Though you raise a good point with the Iccy/Wahiesetel contradiction. Silly Jagex! -- 11:28, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you are definitely capable of doing it bro! Do you use the door to separate Grimson & Hreidmar? Ah, I see what you mean! I don't personally believe that Zaros is the most benevolent god- rather, I think it'll be the most beneficial to my character in game. I do agree that we don't yet know enough. If I was Lord Karim irl, I would instead perhaps back Armadyl...or maybe even Saradomin as he perhaps has the strength to see peace through in the Gielinor. Even if he is a power hungry bastard, haha. -- 19:54, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

I ignored the chaos dwarves; I lured them outside, and shut the door on them hehe :D to stop him from healing, I just saved my thresholds for it. I originally was using ancients, but I wasn't hitting high enough so I switched to Polypore strike as the staff gives a hidden +10% damage boost, as well as taking a super set :) any both storywise (it will be most interesting) as well as the fact that he is such an isolated character with such obvious power; it would be wrong to not attempt to reap some of the benefits. Also, I am notoriously loyal in real life; like, if a girl screws over a mate I'll get quite protective. So seeing as I randomly declared myself a Zarosian like 5 or so years ago, I was almost always going to keep along with it - like, I did feel mildly guilty for abandoning Saradomin when I played as it was a break from loyalty for me! Though of course, after TDOC and MPD, I am glad I am no longer a saradominist! :) What are your own beliefs bro? -- 22:54, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure about the polypore; I seem to hit much higher with it than I do with the wand of treachery. And the teleport thing is super annoying :( I occasionally trapped the dwarves outside one by one, killed them off quickly and use the gained adrenaline to use 'regenerate' once my food had run out. This works well, as Hreidmar only seems to be inclined to use the healing special when he is in combat, so you will be healing whilst his hp will stay (roughly) the same. Ahh, I completely forgot about that Sliske quote. I love it! Highlights and justifies the player's heightened sense of self importance. And whilst I do see why you would want to be godless, I do not think it'd be as interesting. Are there many godless players about? I am a recluse when it comes to playing, so I have no idea as to worshipping demographics. I completely agree with your comments about the story lines. Whilst stuff like Murder Mystery is excellent at fleshing at Gielinor's little niches, the Myreque and mythical/epic stuff is hugely entertaining as it is so immersive and has so much depth. What is your favourite storyline with Gielinor? -- 17:44, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I think most RS players will have a certain level of detachment - that is, doing what they think will be more interesting as opposed to what would perhaps be the more right thing to do (as arbitrary as the idea of 'right' is!). Or maybe that's just me haha. And I agree! If we were untouchable as The World Guardian, it would make for a much more boring storyline. If the Godless took almost a resistance/guerrila role, assassinating Gods who are hugely more powerful than them David and Goliath style, it'd be aaaaawesome. Yeah I know what you mean! I want my character to be consistent with the rest of the game world. Having him as a predestined hero almost breaks the fourth wall, to an extent - as well as demeaning all of our in game achievements. That LotRO idea sounds awesome. At times, I find myself justifying that my character is still alive haha! Like, after I died against TokHaar Hok I was just like 'well, I clearly had an emergency teleport out!'And no, the character's storyline is a great answer...though it is cheating a bit ;) mine would either be the Mahjarrat storyline, or the Myreque :) I'm sorry to have let you down :p I will try and find a true believer for you! I used to be part of a FC where everyone was pretty devote Zarosians. And I'm not sure how accuracy scales with damage - I assumed it only affected a splash or hit ratio kinda thing, but idk :P and dw you're not spamming; I am enjoying the convo! -- 00:18, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Bandos
Stop vandalising Bandos please, i.e. deliberately adding nonsense. I have heard what Mod Osborne said, and he was wrong about one part (vengeance) and phrased the other (humour) very badly. Bandos enjoys the slaughter of his followers, but saying he has a sense of humour is like saying Hitler had a good sense of humour. Also, it's not edit warring if you're removing vandalism. Even if it's good-faith-vandalism. Nevertheless, I'd rather you removed it yourself. Oh, and this is my final word on the matter. 06:24, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll reply. Ahem: ↑ 07:19, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll elaborate... as for the humour part; it's already in there. The part about sadism and follower-wars details Bandos' source of fun, whereas simply saying "he has humour" is not specific enough and could, theoretically (and practically to someone unfamiliar with Bandos), mean that he is "your favourite grandpa who makes brilliant jokes about dogs". Hence that part should be removed; it's already there, but explained in a more thorough way. As for the no grudge holding: that is partially wrong axiomatically, and partially put in the wrong place. Bandos does hold serious grudges; Guthix banished him and he sent Graardor to kill him (but not before obliterating an entire realm in anger - if you don't hold a grudge against someone, you don't become that angry). As for not holding a grudge against us for defeating him, that's rubbish IMO, but let's assume it's true, due to MPD. That means we are a special exception, so put that somewhere between the MPD and TCC sections, being specific that he doesn't hold a grudge against the adventurer. Again, saying he simply doesn't hold a grudge is too general (and wrong for all cases except us). Happy now? Finally, "some form of sadist" is incorrect English, but that's already been dealt with, 07:27, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * ...yeah, that's what Osborne meant... He gets lots of fun at the expense of his followers... He's not a jolly gnome with a good sense of humour. That's undeniably ridiculous.
 * Graardor isn't Bandos - he probably has trouble understanding/expressing what his master meant. If you remember, Bandos was furious and ashamed at his defeat. He will want a revanche with us/Zanik and obliterate us utterly; this, too, is fact. To me, he seems no less intent on vengeance than Melville was, but that's just my opinion. 19:01, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll admit it, that made me chuckle. And of course I've listened to everything. >.> And yes, you should be listening to me, since, clearly, you're coming to the wrong conclusions. In your words: Bandos knows enjoyment and exploits his followers sadistically to get some, but saying he has a sense of humour is stupid. Likewise, saying he doesn't hold grudges is equally stupid (not to mention incorrect), while saying he would desire a rematch to destroy his opponent would work. 19:40, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * "Bandos has a sense of humour (he can crack a good joke)" Lol. No. Again, he is Bandos, the god of war, not Yelps, god of fun. 12:30, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you two agree to something along the lines of "Bandos has a good sense of humour and enjoys mocking gods that he perceives as weaker than himself, such as Icthlarin."? 12:45, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by that. Tell me one good joke Bandos has ever told. 13:05, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Humour does not necessarily equal Bandos telling jokes. It does, however, mean that Bandos has a rather jovial personality, and enjoys making fun of others. Hence "Haha! So you've come to save your fair maiden?". 13:29, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and he describes Death and Strisath and Sliske's new toys. 13:31, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Stating he has a jovial personality, providing these examples, is fine. Saying he has a sense of humour is stupid, for it implies Bandos is a joke machine. @Leon: And I'm not trying to find good arguments - this isn't a debate - just trying to convince you of a fact. 15:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I ever deny that it was said? I'm just saying it's wrong. Rather, you interpreted it wrongly. See Ben's comment above. 16:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your edits
I don't want you to edit war any more pages until you've resolved the matter with the relevant user(s). In this case (Bandos), talk to Fswe about the matter and don't get sidetracked. If you ignore him and continue to edit war, you will be blocked. 07:18, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * He's been notified via private message in S:C. -- 20:23, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * This is about you. Besides, I've already told Fswe that this applies to him as well and he's agreed. 21:14, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Zaros
They were possibilities that Mod Jack put forward. Well, for the second one, Azzanadra misinterpreting other sounds for Zaros' voice may be a more accurate explanation. 10:46, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Special voyages
I wonder why you added this? Doesn't it do the same as the Table of Contents (TOC)? 14:34, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Stop

 * 1) The thread has not ended yet.
 * 2) General consensus seems to be that quotes that aren't at the top of the page can stay.
 * 3) Stop having a tantrum.  18:38, October 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and 4: The thread does not concern audio files. 18:40, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the thread he is referring to can be found at Forum:Remove character quotes. Your edit summaries imply that you are having a tantrum, which is probably why Ben felt it necessary to say that. Please read over the above thread and give your opinions there. Continuing to behave in this manner will lead to a block for you to be able to calm down. 18:54, October 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to how I removed the huge ugly quote from K'ril Tsutsaroth, and how Fswe removed the tiny terrible quote from Moia? Just because we think those quotes were unnecessary (especially in the case of K'ril) does not mean you should go around removing every quote you can find. 18:57, October 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * You can stay up-to-date with all the current discussions on the wiki by checking out RS:AD, which can be found on the navigation bar on the top of the screen under "Community" if you're using the Wikia skin. Passive-aggressive editing is never the way to go, and if you thought a thread should be made, then you should've made it. :P 19:10, October 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * To start a thread, you'd navigate to Forum:Yew_Grove, type in the name you want the forum to have in the box on the right hand side, click "Add new topic" and write what you want to write. You'll then need to hit save. 12:12, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

enchant level 5 jewelry
Looking at the enchant level 5 jewelry page, the history lists that you changed the xp gained from 58.5 to 78.

Where does this info come from? Every sinsgle time I cast it I only get 58.5 xp. Is there supposed to be some other chriteria involved to rise the xp gain? Otherwise this xp entry is throwing off calculations. 98.209.133.170 03:25, November 1, 2013 (UTC) Mikezorander 98.209.133.170 03:25, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Sorry :(
I think he(?) means that if you make Choice A during the quest, and another player makes Choice B, you will have different versions of Zaros, and a player who made Choice C will have yet another different version. 19:03, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Zamorak's tier
If you have a disagreement over the format of Zamorak's tier, then please take it to either the discussion page or to the talk page of the person you're disagreeing with. What you do not do is revert back to your version regardless of the state of the discussion. Edit warring is not productive to the wiki whatsoever 12:21, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly you didn't read my edit summaries, so of course I'm annoyed. I KNOW he was tier 4. You kept adding his post-BoL tier to his BoL form, which is nonsense (by that logic we could add a post-death tier for Guthix). As for the formatting, don't use slang abbreviations (BoL) on articles... Next time your edit is reverted (twice), please take a look at why it is reverted rather than re-adding it without even stating a reason, ok? Thanks. 12:36, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * So why did you keep reverting it back to your version regardless of the state of the discussion? 12:34, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * That really does not excuse your behaviour. You still committed an edit war, and although you did try to contact Fswe and avert it, you still went ahead and put it back to your version several times.  There's a reason why we have the RS:3RR policy  13:19, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Three times you added back in what Fswe removed. That is edit warring  14:23, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * His giant form is actually very specific to the BoL and he may not be able to assume it anymore due to having lost his power. I see Ciph's dealt with that now though. 13:40, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * He hasn't assumed his giant form post-BoL. Id est; the giant form cannot be tier 5. 14:39, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. He hasn't used his giant form post-BoL so isn't tier 5. What happened pre-BoL doesn't matter because he was tier 4 anyway. 15:27, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * ...seriously, are we resorting to that now? At any rate, I most certainly am not. The giant form was only ever used when Zamorak was tier 4. 15:46, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop making a complete fool out of yourself and actually read what I have written, okay? Zamorak was tier 4 during and before the BoL. His giant form is also exclusive to the BoL and before that. Ergo, the giant form has only ever been used by tier 4 Zamorak. When the BoL ended, he became tier 5 and hasn't used his giant form since. Ergo, the giant form can't be tier 5. Stop telling me Zamorak and Saradomin were tier 4, then became 5 and 3 respectively: I bloody know that. And in case I seem angry: I am. If I say X, I don't need a response that boils down to "No, it's not X - it's X, so go away." 20:03, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please archive your talk; it's making me lag. ;-; 20:04, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * "Then you conclude: that picture = T4, hence only mention T4 stuff. But for me that's waaay too specific." - that's the status quo though. Switched infoboxes are that specific. 18:34, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Zamorak Switch Template
I checked and Zamorak has different clothing on for battle - it covers more of his skin and his decorations aren't as large. There's also the size difference of his wings 13:23, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * What about his shot from Missing, Presumed Death? Pretty sure that's identical to the standard one  14:23, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Bandos trivia
What do those pieces of trivia have to do with the god? Unless it's known that that island or that word translation is a reference to that island, then it shouldn't be included. As for your argument that there is similar trivia on other pages, it could very well be because these trivia have something to do with the god and aren't necessarily a coincidence - for example elven culture contains lots of Welsh references and translations so Seren's name is also Welsh, but Zaros the god is not related to the Greek village Zaros 06:57, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * So remove it then. Unless there's a direct link it shouldn't be put in  07:07, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Zaros/Seren
I don't think it was actually said that the god ascended, just that they don't potray themselves as the gender they were before ascension. Obviously, having never ascended, that applies to Zaros, as he didn't have a gender (or even exist) pre-ascension :P. 09:57, November 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Raven probably was talking about Seren though, but there is still the possibility he wasn't. 09:59, November 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's probably Seren, but it may not be. Zaros does not portray himself as the gender he was before ascension, because he didn't ascend. Mod Raven is exactly the kind of person to troll us by saying stuff like that. At any rate, there's also the possibility it's a weird crystal god we don't even know about :P. 10:14, November 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying he's lying, I'm saying what he says has more than one interpretation. The obvious one is not necessarily the correct one. But anyway, if you want to add speculation to articles and present it as fact, feel free, but it's your fault if it gets proven wrong and the Wiki's reputation for inaccuracy is further justified. 10:36, November 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any solid evidence that it refers specifically to Seren? From where I'm sitting, "weird crystal god" could easily refer to an as yet unseen god, or it could refer to Seren, but given the ambiguity of the statement unless if you have any further evidence then as far as I am concerned it is not wise to present it as solid fact  10:47, November 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * What would count as unambiguous would be a statement specifying either that the "weird crystal god" is Seren or that Seren was not female before becoming a god 14:46, November 13, 2013 (UTC)

I think that reference was added as a source that he is, indeed, a god, as pre-MPD, we had no actual in-game source saying so. Regarding Brassica's alignment, he also speaks of deliciousness being power in his new dialogue. And you can't really make a joke about Brassica Prime: Brassica Prime IS a joke. 12:27, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

KQ leak
Hi Leon Art,

Can you upload this image on the leak page? Via ImageShack, Photobucket, Imgur or Flickr? So it can be uploaded according the rules?

-- 20:45, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

Just want to make sure you're aware
Forum:Quick_3RR_clarification - this is a forum regarding changes to RS:3RR in order to prevent the edit wars that seem to break out over lore 21:02, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Merging
That is not what the Yew Grove is for. That belongs at the proper request page, thanks. 21:13, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

RE:future concern
Zamorak would fall under the category of getting one, as his other form is notably different during a specified event (BoL, golden additions and details that don't make him look like something from Nintendo 64), and that info that falls along with that event is relevant to that form. It's similar with Saradomin. 21:24, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Godhood tier table thingy.
Why did you merge the number and the name of the tiers? It just made it look silly and sloppy, and I see no benefit for doing so. 11:06, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the table to fit what both of you want (Leon having them both under "Tier", Ben wanting them in different cells). Is this an acceptable compromise? 11:16, November 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * I like Ansela's solution, yess. Them being linked isn't any reason for them to be in the same cell, by that logic we would have their description in the same cell too.  11:33, November 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * The name and numbers are different too. The name is well, the name, and the number is the position. The number is not the name of the tier.  11:39, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

Gods page
I see you have made this edit. While editing is nice, you should be discussing it rather than arguing over it in the edit summary. You have been told things like this enough times already. 13:23, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Thingy
The be funny in the way where something is 1% funny (0% being hearing your mum's died and 100% being the funniest thing you've ever seen). This response falls under that. 17:14, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

OMG do you guys never learn?
Please... 18:34, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

RE
I don't think the overstated popularity is that noteworthy to mention; it had nothing to do with NPOV. If you disagree, you're free to undo my edit. 22:45, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

RE: Kingdom ... self?
By "self" I meant that karamja itself is a kingdom (even though that is not strictly true). Italay90 (talk) 18:05, November 29, 2013 (UTC)

Me

 * 1) You callin' me a cake, punk?
 * 2) Is not every day one's afterbirth day?

07:22, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

Come into chat please
now 10:55, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Zamorak
Amazing! An edit you have repeatedly made (note the use of the present perfect here ;)) has been reverted half a dozen times by at least three different users and yet you insist on doing it again? As you may understand, I am becoming increasingly doubtful when it comes to RS:AGF. Now, please be a lamb and revert your edit before this becomes another bloody revert war, the article is put under protection and Fergie goes on a rampage blocking everybody? Love, 20:59, December 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems Fswe beat me to it. Curse his Ninjaness. I blame lag. 21:06, December 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the examines section (which is rather ugly and out of place and has only a fifth of Zanik's trophy case) isn't necessary if we use switchfobox. Would we do that solely for the examine texts? Of course not. However, in his BoL/giant form, other parameters are also different, such as tier and, most importantly, image. Also, Pietel, I suffered the same lag so you can't blame that. ;) You're getting slow - perhaps you should travel to Cambridge to rejuvenate? 07:22, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, allow me to point you to RS:3RR, which you seem to be ignoring. 09:40, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also also, 4 examine texts would be fine in one infobox, as long as you don't specify where they originate, which would be fine. I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory that the first two are from BOL, for example. 10:03, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why, honestly. Maybe you are referring to cook's latest addition? I agree that 4 examinations maybe fine for one infobox, but if you don't specify where&when those examinations are from, then you also lose information. I disagree that you can, a priori, know which examinaiton belongs to which event (be it MPD, BOTD, BOL-cut scene, During-BOL, or later situations). I really don't see how that would be possible. If you know it from memory, sure, but that's not what you said :-/ While I agree that it's certainly not as out of hand as Zanik's examinations, I do think it's necessary. If you think it's ugly, please, do improve on it. But to make a switch template because you would like to add some examinations, that really seems like overkill to me. If you say "well because Zamorak has some gold trims there and different examinations, it is warrented that he has a switch tamplate" then you could with just as much ease say that he should have 3. Because when he is not locked in battle with Saradomin he doesn't have that large kamehameha beam - which also makes him look quite different. Saradomin really does have a significant breakpoint: from fith-age ancient Greek warrior king to 6th-age ...what ever look. Zamorak only has a slight trim loss. The fact that he dropped tier and you want to use that as a criterion, I would also like to dismiss that. Looks aren't limited by the tier gods are on (for so far as we know), and that's all information that can be shown the way it is now. Pre-Bol: 4, Post-Bol: 5. Also note that Bandos also doesn't have another switch template thingy because he's on a different tier. To add unnecessary switch templates really significantly clutters the page and makes it less easy access. They should only be used for more significant differences, like Azzy and Nabanik for example. I hope this is enough delibieraton? ;)  14:02, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * The examine text is irrelevent, there is quite a significant difference between Zam's BOL model and his MPD/BOTD one. The BOL one is MUCH more detailed and stuff, if anything, we should use that one as the one in the infobox because it looks nicer. Regardless, your opinion is irrelevant, you're not allowed to break RS:3RR and change something back after it's been reverted THREE TIMES BY THREE DIFFERENT EDITORS without resolving a discussion or even starting one in the first place. 14:54, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reason that it is more detailed is the size, unless you refer to the additional gold, which isn't detail but decoration. If you think that more beautiful then.. that's fine. That is however a personal opinion and I'm not aware of the policy that the most appealing image should be used when another is equally detailed, more recent and easier to use (no unnecessary kamehameha-beam). The discussion was resolved, I think. Ciphrius Kane's solution was adopted for as far as I remember (using the MPD version). Then it was reverted again by some-one else. Anyway, regardless your opinion I did not think I break RS:3RR. Which was arguable broken by Fswe1 on the God page when he re-added Bandos' prior tier.  19:47, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just the gold trims, it has more polygons in general, proper eyeballs, ect. And yes, you did break it, you reverted something that had been reverted three times by three different editors. There was NO discussion on whether to use the switch infobox or not. At any rate, they're different models, therefor a switch infobox should be used. 10:56, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't look like it came out of OSRS. 11:17, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * If you weren't that arrogant it would be a different story... but really dude, stfu. "There was NO discussion..."?? How can you be so damn sure?? Tell me how you disprove that negative, really just humour me, show me how. I will let you on to a secret: ppl can send PMs, there can be discussion without you knowing about it. And since you don't even bother reading the discussion Oil and I had, id sure as hell doesn't surprise me that it escaped you that there actually was a discussion about it, want a little hint? What about this? Also.. wth does 07 have ot do with this??  11:33, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no discussion about whether a switch infobox should be used or not anywhere, could you please link me to it?. At any rate, discussion is completely pointless if it's not actually done with the people who are reverting your edits, especially if they can't even see it. 11:38, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I see it now, my dog was distracting me. At any rate, Ciph seemed to believe that his BOL form looked identical to how he did in MPD, which was untrue. Regardless, Ciph not was the one reverting your edits, and people have reverted your edits (and you have reverted them back) since then with no discussion. 11:44, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, it looks like Ciph didn't even actually respond to your proposal of only using one image. 11:47, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted, but please, refrain from those tendentious remarks, it really doesn't promote healthy discussions (it certainly annoys the hell out of me). Especially if you disagree on online fora.
 * I would like to point out something that I think is important. The word "identical" has an aura of absolutism, which isn't useful. When you look at the difference between Saradomin-5th & 6th age then you see quite a big difference. Also the difference between Zamorak-god and Zamorak-statue/Mahjarrat is similarly big. The difference between MPD/BotD and BoL is not that big, only a matter of trim (I dismiss the kamhehameha, that's his power not part of his body). If you don't think the trim is that big of a change you may think they look virtually identical. I never look identical, a frown is different the wind blows my hair. Game models may be different but he certainly doesn't look radically different, they look pretty much identical to me (I assume Ciph had the same opinion). I also remember Ciph mixing in the discussion I had with some-one else. 11:59, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the differences in Zamorak's forms to show you it isn't simply the gold trim. 1: Higher polygons in general. 2: BOL model has gold trims around the edge of his top. 3: BOL model has yellow claws on his fingertips. 4: BOL model has a more detailed forehead-gem. 5: The bit of cloth hanging down his robe bottoms is shapped differently. There are more differences, of course, just pointing out some of them. 18:39, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Re: SoJ & AKAs
Sure we can, but I'm not messing with default infobox templates. I was merely removing a(n) (at this time) pointless parameter, without removing information as the AKAs are all stated in the first sentence as well. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 12:05, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem moving the AKAs to an appropriate spot in an infobox. In this specific case, however, a general "interactive scenery" infobox is used; are AKAs in general useful for this type of infobox? Either way, if you're asking about my general stance, I am not for nor against moving the AKAs, and I don't mind having AKAs. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 14:58, December 5, 2013 (UTC)

*sigh*
1. OldTier 3 has been merged with OldTier4 to become NewTier4, as evidenced by Saradomin and Zamorak being moved from OldTier3 to NewTier4. This means that the OldTier3 and OldTier4 are now not reliable anymore.

2. How on earth does it make sense for Bandos to be the strongest of the young gods (apart from Guthix)?!

It would be nice if you would actually think about this kind of thing before mindlessly reverting it. 15:55, December 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * The system was changed, therefore you are making an assumption by assuming that the old forum thread is still valid. I don't have to "back up" anything - the claim is that Bandos is tier 3 and that claim needs backing up. I'll ask mod Osborne on Twitter anyway, so we'll know for sure.


 * I did not mean to patronise you - I apologise if that is how it came across.


 * I did not think Zaros (who was banished) and Seren (who 'sploded) relevant to the situation. Anyway my point still stands - why would Bandos be more powerful than Saradomin and Zamorak? We can make assumptions, sure, but since this discussion is about not-assuming things I don't feel like going there. 20:16, December 5, 2013 (UTC)

Hiya
I've noticed your recent edits to the Zamorak page, and I have concluded that the following changes should take place. This has been agreed with several other users:

Firstly, The switch infobox will be brought back onto the page, with Normal/Bol as the titles. ("Normal" won't probably be the title, but you know what I mean). The whole page looks stupid. You have a section devoted to examine info, which looks ugly (And what's worse is in the infobox there's a link that says "See article"). In the "Normal" section, there will be the current image, the godhood tier 4/5, and the examine info from MPD and BOTD. In the BoL section, there will be the BoL option, both tiers 4/5, and the BoL examine/s.

Secondly, the #Examines section will be removed. As mentioned above, the examine info will be merged onto the switch infobox (and thus be more accessible)

The gallery will remain. I may be wrong here, but I believe it was you who moved some images from sub sections into a gallery. I'm completely fine with this. Oh, and obviously the BoL image will be moved from the gallery into the switch infobox.

I've noticed that Fswe and Ben have argued whether Zamorak is aligned to power or not. I've left it as so. And while I'm here, please don't forget about RS:3RR. 12:19, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Because your idea is, no offence, bad. I don't think I've ever seen a page with a section with Examinables. This isn't me parting with Ben, but just what seems right. I really don't know why you continued to remove the switch infobox once again and again.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by having "some information [to where] the various examinations apply to", because don't we have that on every page with multiple examines?


 * And look, if you and Ben are going to continually argue about what the best structure is of the page, then you're going nowhere. I've done this so we can go somewhere. If you want to suggest a change, please, at least put it on the talk page. Edit warring is not the answer. (By the way I just woke up so if anything looks odd just tell me) 22:15, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

Saraderpmin and Zamowack.
Um, SixthAge!Saradomin does NOT appear in Ritual of the Mahjarrat and The World Wakes, for obvious reasons, and PreSixthAge!Saradomin doesn't appear in The Death of Chivalry and The World Wakes. Likewise, BattleOfLumbridge!Zamorak never appears in any quests whatsoever. Why are you saying that they do? 18:23, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Zamorak was also never tier 5 during the Battle of Lumbridge. 18:25, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * And Saradomin was never tier 3 before the Sixth Age.... Do you even realize what the Switch infobox is for? 18:27, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't see what Haidro said. Regardless, that's inconsistent with the examine texts and images, and how pretty much every other switch infobox on the wiki is formatted... Also, please don't put visual editor crap on my talk page again. 18:39, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly... that's why I think the decicion as curious in the first place. So what about that link?? Do you really think I do that ( visual editor crap ) on purpose??  19:55, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the 3/4 tier for BOl Zamorak was that he briefly used his BOl model after Saradomin defeated him before Moia teleported him away. That doesn't apply to Saradomin, and Haidro didn't even say anything about him anyway. 18:41, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring and RS:3RR
Hi Leon, I just wanted to inform you that your most recent edits to the Saradomin and Zamorak are consistent with the definitions of edit warring as listed in RS:3RR and as such I have temporary blocked you for these edits. The offending edits may be seen here and here. I would advise you to take another look at RS:3RR, specifically the most recent revision of the page which specifies under what circumstances the revert of a good-faith edit on a lore page breaks this policy. Hopefully you will learn from this and take controversial edits to talk pages where they may be discussed before making blanket reverts like you have done. Thanks, 18:44, December 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Can I ask why this policy is applied selectively then (e.g. this )?  18:58, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * I only apply policy to edits that I see. 19:00, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, what are you talking about? That doesn't break any policy. 19:01, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally (since you picked my edit as an example...), that edit was made before the recent 3RR amendment. But that aside, it is considered edit warring to revert a revert (vandalism, spam, etc. excluded), be it good faith or not. The edit you linked was not that, it was just a revert (indeed, what are you talking about?). Per the "new" policy, the revert I made may not be reverted. On Zamorak and Saradomin, however, you did revert a revert, which breaks 3RR. And not for the first time, I might add. 19:06, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * idk... but in my world November 10 (RS:3RR) is before 5 December (your edit, fswel), and for Suppa, the point I was talking about:


 * In the case of lore-related articles, do not in substance revert a previous revert to the article. Content disputes can and should be taken to the article's talk page (and involved parties should be notified), and no further related edits should take place to the relevant sections until the conflict is resolved.
 * Hope that helps ;) 19:53, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, read 5 November there. >.> Anyway, glad you understand the policy fully. I hope switch infobox is also completely clear now. 20:19, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * But do you??
 * And now, I'm still waiting for the link to that place where it's desccribed that what I was doing is wrong. Because I can't deduce that from this.  07:29, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * You just quoted the 3RR policy on what you did wrong... As for the infobox, you must treat the different infoboxes as different entities entirely. If it helps, see one infobox as Zamorak and the other as Plausible Pete, one of the Pete brothers who is a master in rhetorics and who resembles Zamorak. 07:59, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, by the way, this is also against policy. The information was removed by at least three different users (heck, even IPs) and you kept readding it with the brilliant edit summary ":3". I won't make an issue of it, since you've already been blocked, but please make sure that doesn't happen again, OK? 08:41, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey... don't be a dick, okay? Regardless of my mistake(s), you have far from a clean record.  09:16, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't insult people who are trying to help you. Surely you don't want to break UTP as well? I'll be off now - toodles. 16:06, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I rarely do. 16:29, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Why remove a ref?
Because it's broken. 21:36, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks better. (: 01:33, December 13, 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Farming
You made this a few months back, but never ended up doing much with it. So far, you've only changed Kalferberries, and that was way back in April. Do you have some plan to rework all the produce pages? Or can I clean up this template's usage in preparation for speedy deletion? Or perhaps you'd like to look into making this a task for a later time? 19:22, December 19, 2013 (UTC)

Armadyl colours
Armadly's associated colours are listed as "White, pale blue, silver, amber, orange". I have a theory on this that may make sense.

God Wars and before, Armadyl was associated with the colours white, pale blue and silver, for whatever reason. But then Zamorak blasted Forinthry, wiping out the armies within that land, which included the entirety of Armadyl's Aviansie troops, and what he thought was the entire Aviansie race.

But then he returned to Abinnah, found the remnants of the Aviansie there, and he changed his form, his "aspect", to that of the phoenix. And then he returned to Gielinor, after the edicts were lifted, and it is at that time that the colours red and amber came to represent him also.

Is this logical to anyone you? 10:30, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages
Generally messages on talk pages are directed at the one whose name comes after the talk page. If you want to address users other than the owner of the talk page, then use their talk page, not the current owner's. By doing what you're doing right now, this can cause confusion by giving the impression that you're addressing somebody that you're not. So can you please in future use the addressee's talk page? 19:07, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * What may be clear to you may not be clear to everybody else. Plus, by using somebody else's talk page, the recipient is not notified, while the unintended recipient is, which could lead them to think that you are addressing them.  There's also the issue with confusion arising from who is addressing who if this keeps up, such as you thinking I was talking to you one time when I posted on Ansela's talk page and hence talking to her about your misuse of pronouns  20:23, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I am referring to this edit by the way 20:40, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Aviantese
See Wahi's talk. 15:21, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * ...you don't get what the policy means, do you? Wahi's actions were in full accordance with 3RR. 15:25, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhm. No. That's Mod Osborne being silly and disregarding an existing plural by ignoring it. It's called a lorefail (albeit minor). How can the plural of something be my "personal opinion"? -.- 15:28, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, see Wahi's talk. Two perfectly fine sources there and I can't be bothered looking for more. 15:32, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * ...of course they say "aviansie" in the world event. >.> That's after the mess-up. Look at the original sources referring to aviantese. Ashuelot, Armacus and (apparently) the examine of the Armadylian altar are more reliable. I can't find a single source using "aviansie" as plural before Mod Osborne's thingy, so it was either a retcon or a lorefail. Most likely the latter, because retcons are generally announced. 15:45, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea how you interpreted the above as "this is my opinion". Especially because it is impossible for the statement "the plural of X is Y" to be an opinion... If you'd like to hear my opinion on the matter, I think the usage of "aviansie" instead of "aviantese" is just a common mistake like "Feneskrae" instead of "Freneskae", "Velbadan" instead of "Veldaban" or "Dragonkins" instead of "Dragonkin [pl]". 15:51, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * "My opinion is that the plural of dagger is apple mush." That's ridiculous. Something (semi-)official can't be an opinion. You like it or you don't but it's fact. 18:54, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's a mistake, obviously. 10:40, December 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * *sigh* 10:50, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

RE:3RR
This isn't a revert of a revert, it's just a revert. 15:29, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * ...The move that happened five months ago, long before the 3RR change, to which absolutely nobody contested? In all honesty I had forgotten about it. At any rate, the rule isn't really relevent, it was changed to stop revert wars, and we're discussing it. In fact, I tried to start the discussion first, but you editconflicted me and I didn't notice ;_;. 15:52, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

RE: WE2/BnB image
IMO, it would be better if we used our own images, instead of using jagex's. for example, TWW, BOL, BOTD, etc. In fact, since we have two towers in WE2, we can even merge the two tower images into one and use that: File:Armadyl's Tower.png and File:Bandos's Tower.png. 13:39, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

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?