User talk:Rwojy/Archive 8

Archive 1

Items kept on death.
That sounds like a good idea. Imagine a calculator where you enter in some item names and it shows the items that you would keep and loose. You should probably talk to User:Azliq7 about it since she would know how you would go about implimenting it. 05:02, December 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... it is a good idea. And the parameter can remain hidden unless the value is entered. Do you want to start collecting the data? If not, why don't you propose a WikiGuild at the Yew Grove?
 * I think you should ask User:Gaz Lloyd and User:Catcrewser for the "death value" calculator, or simply post your idea at Forum:Java calculators.


 * Thanks. 07:00, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created Category:Untradeable items. This category is currently empty, but it will be filled soon (in a day or two) with a list of untradeable items that you wanted. 06:17, December 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... first, let's compile a list of items with different "death" values. Then, we'll decide whether to include this into the Item infobox. I want to know how many items require this information... If only a handful of items have different "death" values, it would be pointless to create a new parameter for it. We should probably just include the information in the article. 06:35, December 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Undo-ing my edit made it impossible for me to spot which items were added into the category. Give me an example?  09:42, December 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * You reverted my edit because of that one item? The problem was at the infobox in the article, not at the template itself. I've fixed it, but a few untradeable items may be excluded from the category if the article still used the old parameter "tradable" instead of "tradeable".  10:12, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Sysopping
Congratulations on your successful RFA! You can now do the following:


 * Edit and move fully protected pages
 * Delete, restore, and view deleted revisions of pages and images
 * Protect pages from edits, moves, or creation by non-sysops
 * Block and unblock users and IP addresses and ranges
 * Edit the interface pages in the MediaWiki: namespace
 * Moderate the forums
 * View Special:Unwatchedpages
 * Mark problem reports as closed, fixed, or needing staff help

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. 16:30, January 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratumalations! First sysop of 2010  16:32, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Lucky! Oh well, I will just have to try harder  16:37, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guesss your noob level dropped by one....Just one though! 18:43, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't your name in the recent changes green yet? 19:09, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry lol just really bored  01:23, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * where and what world? :o 01:27, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a member right? and if yes meet me in castlewars i'll show you a better spot. 01:30, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Sire ! Merry New Year, too! 02:09, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Rwojy! You've become useless now! -- 02:55, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats!!!?!?!?! 06:14, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! 14:23, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote Psycho: U IS AMIN NAO LUSER! -- 17:23, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, I almost forgot :P Congratulations Rwojy on sysop! VANDALS, BEWARE!! lol  17:25, January 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. First Sysop of the Decade! 18:23, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. 22:01, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

thank you!
Thank you for the warm welcome. :P Happy new year, by the way!--Bigmallet 17:35, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Curse your speed
Beat me on removing the standard detail notice on the 3rd age amulet image somehow, you must be the flash or something since you edited before me and I was already on the page. 21:47, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew it! Don't worry though your secret is safe with me. 22:22, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

here
hmm...http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/scoot1331/Picture2-2.jpg 22:06, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Grats! http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/scoot1331/Picture4-3.jpg
 * darn you... 23:16, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Copyright infringement@@@@@@
What about banneth? -- 01:19, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * kthx -- 01:20, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Assume Good Faith
Sorry! That was my fault; I assumed too much. 02:50, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Corporeal Beast
My bad. I'm on a different laptop than the one I usually use, and... it's hard to explain, but the (prev) pages are confusing to read on this laptop. Eh, I'll just stay away from reverting vandalism right now. 04:06, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Unblock request
Thanks, and Huzzah! you plan has failed! 06:38, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if M unit162 was trying to vandalise the wiki with that page on Gertjaars. Warning him for vandalism seems like a bit too much imo. 07:12, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Special:Contributions/67.142.163.37
It looked A LOT like blanking when i looked at the history, but alright 19:16, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought warnings were admin only 22:44, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, just didn't get the message copied yet 23:28, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, because I don't know where to put quar.'s code; thanks -- 23:34, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

0.0 I'm not sure; how do I find out? 23:38, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for installing it, I refreshed the cache, now next to edits, there is a report button. Also, when editing user talks, there is a drop menu; which item is a warning? 00:38, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

misinformation
Well, its all about my anti-vandalism tactics. By phrasing it in such a way some youths (I have bounced my ideas off my own teens to help me refine my approach as to what is more likely to work) will see that humorously and decide we are "cool" enough so won't bother messing with us any more. Part of giving second chances, I generally try to not use the template as its so impersonal that no one getting the template will likely ever be turned. Of course, some vandals by what they do show they aren't worth trying to turn anyhow. But sometimes it's just refreshing to try an individualistic approach, like rolling the dice and seeing what happens so to speak.--Degenret01 00:46, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do use the template a lot, just sometimes its nice to try an alternate method. --Degenret01 00:52, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have crazy expectations lol. I sort of just hope that maybe one out of a hundred will decide to help us instead of vandalizing. Its worth the attempt I think.--Degenret01 00:55, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

RE:One thing
In the D template message, you mean? 04:40, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do, thanks. 04:45, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/scoot1331/Picture1-4.png hows that look dude? 04:48, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/scoot1331/Picture1-6.jpg good night<3 04:54, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Errr.... this guy..
You blocked him already? He only made one bad edit, he should at least get a warning and a second chance before being blocked. In the future, I'd advise you give them at least one more chance, I mean come on, maybe he just got bored and decided to do that. It was only one edit. 06:22, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well drink a glass of water or somethin', one bad edit, boredom or not, shouldn't give him a block of three days! Maybe a few hours if you really feel the need to, but even still, that's a bit much. One warning can change a person's attitude when they edit the wiki, and blocking him right away probably just angered him more. Boredom was a bad example, but no matter what the case was in his head, it's still only one edit. The warning templates are specifically designed to handle that first/second/third bad edit, whereas a block would be used when it's obvious the editor just won't listen. 06:31, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not know that... can't say I think it's fair to the vandal, but eh, what can I do about it? 06:42, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have given 5 days, heh. 11:35, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Template:Deu
Done! -- 06:38, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Guthixs' hunter
All righty. So is it better to add the 'd' tag or to use the admin page? 09:33, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Add S C00 T when you log in. 01:19, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

block 216.8.245.21 03:59, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another 1 last chance? He made an unconstructive edit to Free Play. 04:04, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, just you said 1 more unconstructive edit (which that was) but it's your choice and I understand. 04:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

RE:User:ItsAlexPan
Sorry for the mis-understanding. I did not see that it was a test. I will fix it immediatly. 04:23, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Your Images
All I have as far as graphics software is MS Paint(lol). Does the wiki have a transparency tool?

Clear
Lol, thanks. 07:40, January 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * How's this master? 08:17, January 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Master. How could I have messed up something that you, Rwojy, fixed?! I am ridiculous, forgive me *bows*  18:56, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

RE: FoG
Good thinking. I was thinking that a subpage with just the rewards would be useful, similar to the Soul Wars Rewards page. It really needs to be cleaned up. 19:06, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou
05:31, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Samuri sword
oh sorry i just though you didn't like the storyline  20:37, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

re:Samuri sword
Ok-- 20:40, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Bukgets
Lul. Yep, that's not obvious vandalism at all ! Sneaky vandals. 21:34, January 6, 2010 (UTC) Is a bukkit! -- 00:57, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww293/Iiii_I_I_I/GEbukkit.png
 * Awmg bukkit!!!!! 00:59, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Deleting too early
Why did you delete the file called lol.png?? While it is a slightly suspicious name, there is no evidence that it was a personal image. I normally either wait until they place the image on their userpage, or about an hour has passed since they uploaded it and nothing has happened to delete the image. 05:39, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I undeleted the image since he used it on the Armour/Strength page. 05:42, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, assume good faith. To use a very dodgy, overused, even capitalist and nationalist phrase, "They are innocent until proven guilty". 05:47, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not assuming good faith, that is just how different people think that different things are block-worthy. Me and Caleb have had big debates over whether someone should be blocked for vandalising a gemw page with the wrong numbers. If Caleb blocked for a week for that, then that is completely within the outlines of the blocking policy. AGF is when if it is reasonable possible, you assume that the user was trying to make a constructive edit instead of vandalising. That is what I felt you needed to do. 05:57, January 7, 2010 (UTC)