User talk:Agamemnus/Archive 2

Summer's End Edits
I like what you've been doing with Summers End. Just small edits but its all important in the end!

Royboo 04:03, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

RE: I see what you did there
It's a common practice to remove or edit out usernames in images. Why does this phase you so? Star Find 18:26, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless.. it shows my username, and I'd rather like to be seen as a mere editor of the Wiki, rather than someone who tries to put up images with their username in it just to get attention. Star Find 22:10, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Need your opinion. You can ignore this now. It's been resolved.
This is my edit on the style guide:

"Those rookie editors made the mistake of writing 'should of' when they meant 'should have.'"

It was originally written by me as "Those rookie editors made the mistake of writing "should of" when they meant 'should have.'"

Notice the regular quotes ( " ) around the should of part.

The entire quote is in quotes. Nested quotes (quotes inside the whole quote) look like this: '

Suppa chuppa reverted my edit, saying "The most commonly accepted use of nested quotes is to alternate between " and '". I think that's ridiculous. What are your opinions on the matter? Prgmbeta 00:15, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

RSMV Discussion
The community wanted it closed. The thread has been open for quite a while, yet discussion never moved forward. Keeping it open, the way I see it, would be like letting this thread run forever. 19:45, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

The thread was never going to reach consensus. I recommend you read Caleb's comments as to why it should be closed. 19:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I have not changed my reasoning a bit, calm down. His signature says C.Chaim, and he posted multiple times. 20:37, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, the quotes I had in mind when I directed you to the thread where these:

''Keeping a thread open indefinitely drains the time and effort of users, especially if a discussion really is going nowhere. It would be redudant and unnecessary to keep such threads open, plus with the endless arguing back and forth, tensions and frustration tend to escalate.''

Discussions can be closed if they have been going on for a reasonable amount of time but are going nowhere.

20:43, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who asked Stelercus to close it. I would have done it myself, except for the fact that I already took a stance on it. At any rate, the RSMV thread should be closed, since there are few to none new arguments being made, and all it is doing is jacking everyone's tempers up. 02:09, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

&*$# it, open another one. And do it and ever and ever. Anyone who doesn't like the thread can bloody well ignore it. Lefty is making up his own rules and applying laws that do not apply and twisting the truth, and that should not be tolerated. But when you make a new one, keep it civil and logical, and factual. Good luck.--Degenret01 02:26, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there I am falling in the same old trap. It is high time to turn this thing around. Put the burden of proof where it belongs. As of right now, this wiki has no policy disallowing the RSMV images. If some people want to make a policy disallowing them, then it is on them to do so. But if you upload any, follow what Robert said to do with them. If they get deleted for not being allowed, then the admin deleting them is misusing their tools. It really is that simple.--Degenret01 03:11, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you re-propose the same old thing we will get the same old result. The only way to win is to make them fail to achieve a policy disallowing the images.--Degenret01 03:42, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what your talking about when you say I am using circular logic. The thread was turning into a flame war, there was no sign of it ever achieving consensus, and it was doing nothing more than draining the community of its time. If you think you where about to fix this, then talk to some people on their talk pages. If your still convinced even then you can write a passable proposal, then do it, but that old thread is gone. 09:36, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * As for your comment about having getting somewhere with the proposal, I don't believe you. 09:37, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

ITS ITS ITS
You forget, this is teh intertubes, ware bad spealing is teh norm. Although, to be honest, I cringe every time I see someone use your instead of you're, and vice verse. 23:36, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Re:?
Well, it looked a bit washed out compared to the other thumbnails here. I didn't actually look at the full-size image. -- 16:13, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Underground images
Sorry if this seems random, but I saw your post on someone's talk about images taken underground being too dark, and you can fix this by turning scenery shadows off and turning lighting detail to low. 06:22, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah don't I know it. 02:52, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

"selling thier goods"
What says this? Featured image? Feature article? Update? 18:35, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

"Southwest"
Well, according to our style guide, it's "South-west". 03:58, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Our style guide is based on British spelling and what has been said in runescape or by jagex is news, posts, or game guide (like "tradeable"). 04:09, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Question about GE history
First, we try to keep the Yew Grove focused on big wiki-related discussions, so questions like that should be brought to RS:UH. As for your question, our graphs as generated here go back farther than the rs.com graphs, so you could use those. If you need to go farther back still, you can look at the page history for each exchange page, find the date you are interested in, and view the page to see what the price was at that time. Hope that helps. -- 17:14, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Re:RS wiki cache
I closed the discussion be cause the community on the whole was opposed to the idea of using the images, for a number of reasons. There's no need to debate my decision. If you really think it's wrong, have another neutral admin review the closure. -- 15:11, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, what you are saying is totally subjective. While you argue that what I'm saying is not true, my interpretation of the discussion shows me that it is true. Closing a discussion isn't about what I think, it is what the community thinks, and like it or not, the community does not want to use the RSMV images. Again, if you believe I acted incorrectly you are free to ask another admin to take a second look. -- 18:41, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

a comment i saw
on your edit to the Am of Accur article...

Party hats are junk too ;)--Jakezing2 23:05, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * ...er, so, whats with all the removal of the word merchanting? --Jakezing2 23:20, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have Support to remove a very real, very accepted term and part of the RS player culture? --Jakezing2 23:25, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * But your also replacing every single instant of the term Merhcanting; which, despite not being a official English Word Is a Runescapian Term and therefor relevant and correct. The mods call it merchanting, the players call it merchanting, the article writers call it merchanting. Your sorta outnumbered in opinion my friend. I have nothing against it really but it does seem rather... ownershipy.--Jakezing2 23:33, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * This wiki, along with... all others to my knowledge rules on consensus, and consensus says the term is merchanting. Wikipedia says it rather right: We aren't here to tell the truth but only the facts ;) and the fact of the matter is: Merchanting is a term.--Jakezing2 23:37, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Censorship
Systematically removing the word wherever possible is censoring it. There are plenty of words that are not official English terms. (Addy, mithril, etc.) However, seeing your "crusade" against this term which is so deeply ingrained with the RS community's culture is highly disconcerting.-- 23:45, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - the last 100 or so edits you've made are really not of the quality I would expect from someone who has been a wikian for the last six months. Having read some, but not all of them, I'd like to see them reverted. 01:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

do you understand the implications
that accepting your logic would cause for this wiki? Your logic is we cant use words that are not real words but.... this game and wiki are filled with that... shall we go delete most of the wiki now?--jakezing 02:45, October 8, 2010 (UTC) how about thingy?--jakezing 02:45, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be newspeak my friend. As to a defnmition, it is all of them. However, those words do not apply in the terms you changed them into: when you replaced merchanting you replached something that had been placed for a reason.

According to you merchanting does not exist at all, according the other... 99.##% is DOES. So... is the entirety of the game wrong?--jakezing 02:48, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet it exists, as a term for a player acitivty. Or do you intend to tell all those traders, merchanters and forum users it isn't real?--jakezing 02:49, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have mistaken the goal of this site.... it is to document RUNESCAPE, and merchanting IS something that exists and is used in runescape. You just don't get it do you... your the ONLY one actually supporting this, or have you ot noticed nobody but you has reverted the other reverts? --jakezing 02:53, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * -Sigh- "Started in April of 2005 by Merovingian, the RuneScape Wiki's goal is to become a vast, knowledgeable source for all things in RuneScape. As the site is a wiki, anybody can edit it, and all are encouraged to do so."

Actually, I cannot keep this up all night, as I have places to be in the morning. The definition of a Trade and a merchant are not the same, however, in the context you attempted to apply it trader to, merchant was the correct definition as a very real and known/hated subclass of trader.

IT does not MATTER that it is a made up word by players, because it was still made by them and STILL used by them. Unless you plan to make the entire game stop using the term, its going to exist, as much as you hate that it isn't proper Englisch.--jakezing 03:01, October 8, 2010 (UTC) -sighs again- Im done with this. As much as i understand your argument, I still cannot accept it because in the terms of runescape it IS wrong because your replacing the word merchant wherever it appears in this website, to the point of renaming articles on a mass scale (I looked through your edits) without any consent, agreement or even friken asking before hand. You unilaterally assumed way to much in doing it considering you appear to want it to happen wiki wide. However, i have no more patience for this tonight and plan to get some rest. Goodday sir -leaves---jakezing 03:13, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * im not admitting your right, nor am I accepting it. Im tired of the arguing. I'd rather the entire wiki decide, not one user. I also have my own articles I need to edit so, I would prefer you not bother me with a reply on my talkpage.--jakezing 03:28, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just providing a link, don't yell at me. google:define:merchanting. 03:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Slang words.
Cool, since "Merchanting" isnt a word, just random letter put it place wich then have a definition in language and people understand it, I'm gonna to tell to edit all the god damn articles in this Wiki and remove the words, you will rule this wiki with correct wording ze grammar Nazi. ScionCrush 17:58, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

OH and just so you know Agam
You like to tout that one year or so mark...

I've been here since 2006, I've been editing, with other accounts, and not always,.... edits I'm proud of in my immaturity, for FOUR years. Just so you know. --jakezing 03:50, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, i have a title ^_^ -wears "Vandal" as a badge of Honour^_^- --jakezing 03:54, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, You weren't expecting such a reply, were you haha--jakezing 04:01, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, sorry for being immature here, :(--jakezing 04:52, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Restraint
Please refrain from making any further edits or reverts in any controversial manner. Personally, I agree with your opinion, and I intend to comment when the heat fades. However, your current actions are very likely to earn you a block, which would be unfortunate because you're acting in good faith, in my opinion. However, consensus is everything; some editors even value consensus over law, per some discussions I've had, so I'm absolutely certain that the outcome of the thread will be the accepted phrasing of the article regardless of the correct, incorrect, accurate, or innaccurate action. If the thread turns out to be in favor of accuracy, you'll get to make the approved changes, but, again, please refrain from making any further controversial edits or reverts until consensus has been reached. Leftiness 04:50, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Your block.
You have been temporarily blocked (1 day) for edit warring/3rr infraction. You have been warned by several users, and have blatantly disregarded the policy. I plead that you take this time to let your emotions out of the issue, and use a clear-mind to think of alternate decisions. Please remember that emotions often cause us to say or do things that might not be favorable. This block is not a punishment, rather to prevent further damage to the community and to allow you time to calm down. Your talk page is not protected, but please, don't abuse that. =) 04:53, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Karlis. I'm afraid you are simply completely mistaken in your facts. I did not make a single edit after the first user told me about this rule. --Agamemnus 05:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The last edit to the wiki I made was at 4:35, and BicycleCat told me about the "three-revert-rule" at 4:39. Check it! --Agamemnus 05:26, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Karlis, why would you only block one of the parties involved in the incident? 05:16, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my block summary on the other user. I came out of game to deal with the issue, and I didn't click block "hard enough" on jake's, so it didn't go. I changed the summary and block time to roughly match. My apologies, as I went back into fullscreen and didn't check-up. Also, your edit warring and poor attitude on the subject earn you the block. Please, I believe it would be beneficial if you would just take the evening (or morning, wherever you live) off to cool down. The situation could have been handled differently, and you chose an aggressive way to deal with it. 05:26, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * While we like to help how we can, it is not our common practice to outline every singly policy for everyone, all the time. The link to our rules and policies may be found in multiple spots, including your welcome notice. 05:28, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "You have been warned by several users, and have blatantly disregarded the policy.". Do you retract your statement, seeing as it is not the correct timeline?
 * "Also, your edit warring and poor attitude on the subject earn you the block." You can't do that, under the RULES--> "If the reverts were under good faith, the offenders should be warned before taking action against their accounts." --> "Assume that when an editor makes an edit, it was to help the wiki, not to vandalise it."--Agamemnus 05:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And another thing. I am simply infuriated now. "The situation could have been handled differently, and you chose an aggressive way to deal with it." Yesterday, when jake started undoing my edits, I talked with him about it, and gave my logical reasons for doing so. He wouldn't have it and did not engage in a discussion, choosing to brush off my logical points as if they were nothing. He messaged multiple other users to try to get them to undo my edits, and some of them did his bidding. Then, I started a Yew Grove thread about it, and he continued to consistently revert all my edits. WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU HAVE ME DO?--Agamemnus 05:35, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the forum posts. 05:32, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Be civil. Please refer to my previous post about emotions clouding judgment. 05:37, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * When you have a major disagreement on edits, you can bring it to that page's talk page. In this case, you would bring the issue with "merchanting" vs the ge trading to the yew grove, and achieve a community consensus on which is proper or "more correct" and go from there. People obviously have differing opinions. Constantly reverting, then calling another editor's edits vandalism is not the way to go. 05:42, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Is your ip 24.147.49.50‎?
Because if it isn't then someone's impersonating you. 07:27, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

IP
Could you please stop editing on your IP when you have an account, unless you have a good reason to. Thanks, 09:20, October 17, 2010 (UTC)