User talk:Smithing/Archive 1

Edit warring
Hello, please stop edit warring on the RuneScape:Players don't deserve articles‎‎ page. Stop editing it, and discuss the changes that you want to make on the policy's talk page. Thanks. Ajraddatz 15:32, February 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * I did, and no-one disagreed. Why don't you guys stop reverting? Smithing 15:53, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know... but either way, thanks for your further attempts to discuss it. Ajraddatz 16:12, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also added another section to the talk page so this can be discussed further after the revert by Evil, however there doesn't appear to be any objections to my revert yet, and there shouldn't be. Smithing 19:07, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * What did I just say? Stop reverting. Go and talk with him in a civilized manner on his talk page if you must, but if you make one more revert on that page I'll block you. Ajraddatz 23:10, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew that before you told me. Smithing 23:14, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage
I created it with user, feel free to edit it to your liking. 02:17, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Wiki vs. Wikia
We are a wiki, Wikia is a company and the hosting wikifarm. Please try not to use the words interchangeably. 03:42, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. Smithing 03:51, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Misthalin
Why did you change the referencing templates I had put in? 04:04, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the game guide suggests that any civilization was formed during the Second Age. Is that reference adequate? 04:09, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the template because no-one could see them (there was a red error message). The references you had were reliable. And just fyi, the problem is the often accepted part, it is already said nothing is known. Smithing 18:06, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that I hadn't put in Reflist, I got kicked off the computer and juuuust the wrong moment. I changed your CiteWeb to CiteGG, as it fills in more info automatically, and I changed the 2 to just Reflist. I cited the statement that Al Kharid is not part of Misthalin, too.

Anyway, when someone sends you a message on your talk page, if you respond on their talk page with a section like "Re:Misthalin" they get notified when you respond straight away, and when they respond, you get notified straight away. It's useful, because it makes conversation happen faster. Some people hate doing that, though. 23:42, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Changes
Do NOT require consensus. Stop it.--Degenret01 03:21, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * The guide is often just insane when it is being worked on, so much wrong info or bad info or non relevant info is added. It is a far different thing than a "completed" work. The warning is justified and necessary.--Degenret01 03:30, March 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * In this case the dispute tag makes no sense unless there is actually a dispute. Corrections are being made constantly, hour by hour, on new guides. People should be aware of that. And no, it does not tell us admins not to delete it, we already know better. --Degenret01 08:22, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

since I won't be an admin much longer~
I need to get my shits and giggles somewhere. This is for you, observed in the IRC channel. Everyone's so culty and cliquey that I'm sure nothing will come of it if you speak up, but it's more of an fyi. read towards the middle, right after the long links.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/480/greenshot20110410041152.png

direct link since it gets squished weird

Christine 08:16, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it sad that someone would say that. I always look at things using direct facts (and get extremely high marks in school because of this). This is the sort of stuff that very pathetic and inconsiderate people say in order to make themselves feel better, and it will not get them far in life. Smithing 17:32, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Featured images discussion
Since Suppa isn't here I'll field this one. The discussion was not closed prematurely. It had been two days since the last new person came to offer a support/oppose, and the discussion at that time was just a long back-and-forth between you and Cook. Furthermore, we don't count votes and rely on a consensus system. Even by the measures of "rough consensus," 70% is needed, which was not attained. 16:55, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the last person with a support/oppose was Psycho Robot, who opposed, so the "trend support" thing doesn't quite work. Second, if you look at the discussion, there was very little new stuff. New commentators were very sparse. I had to scroll up just to find the last support/oppose comment from the bottom of the page, and I had to scroll up another page length to find the second to last support/oppose. That means the discussion is more or less dead, and that further discussion would be unlikely to result in any difference of opinion. 02:14, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

RE:Please re-open
Hey, don't worry, I'm not ignoring your question. I'll answer you properly in a bit. 23:30, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * First, we don't go by democracy, so the number of supporters/opposers is irrelevant for the most part. In any cases, your percentages were off. Additionally, the result of the previous thread had to be taken into account, and by the time it was closed, discussion had been exhausted. 23:49, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It had been a few days since the last real comment when I closed the thread, and I see nothing in the way of a "shift of opinion". I understand that you may be disheartened by my decision in closing the thread, but it was clear that although some users wanted to see the restrictions removed, others wished that they remain in place. Although it may seem to you that the supporters made stronger arguments than those in opposition, I disagree. There were valid points made by both parties and it was fairly clear that there was no consensus on the issue. 07:40, May 2, 2011 (UTC)