User talk:Thebrains222

Please direct all spam/blackmail/threats to this page: User talk:Matthew2602. Thank you.

Re:baarghh@
Awe, you archived my masterpiece... 09:25, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

RE:HybridRecents
Alright, thanks for telling me. I'll look into that. 18:20, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Need help
Do you need any help with the Portal pictures cause I could help. 05:40, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me a few picture sets and I'll get pictures. 05:43, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I forgot I don't have 4X AA and I'll start with Ranged but gonna need some hell with taking pictures. 05:50, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey can you help me out on the picture front cause I use a laptop for RS and it won't run 4X AA nor does it have a big screen. 06:24, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

User of the Month
Congratulations on being May's user of the month! Since I have no idea what you actually do around here (sorry ), I am unable to write your paragraph. If you wish to write your own, that is fine by me (just make sure to add it to all the appropriate spots). In the meantime, I will ask around for others who know you better. I'll start with Cook. Be sure to poke me if I don't have it done in a few days. Don't let me forget! 02:10, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on UOTM brains! :D Sadly, as nobody knows what you do around here, your paragraph will have to be "Nothing interesting happens." :D - 02:14, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've written a draft of your paragraph. How does "While considering what makes thebrains222 a remarkable editor, we returned the Nothing interesting happens error, and that's why he's our April User of the Month" sound? 03:01, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edit Undo
Note:


 * I did not undo any links, that was probably a wikia glitch, because the only edits that I made were the edits to attempt to shrink the size of the image in the Infobox bonuses template.


 * Please do not upload invalid files.

Thanks, 11:19, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I did, but you placed it on the page. 11:26, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I took it as you had uploaded the file, my bad. Still, no reason to get all snippy with me. 11:37, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Its k, no harm done, and sorry as well. 11:47, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Um, eighth?
11:26, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

ohai
Can you delete this and this too? Thanks. 05:42, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can ya also delete this? 05:54, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Reverting user page
Thanks for reverting my profile page to what it was before, instead of "fail faggot". Kwekko Talk 17:19, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

CLICK HERE AND WIN A FREE VACATION TO A DESTINATION OF YOUR CHOICE
01:35, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did I fall for this? 22:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

RE:Good job
11:25, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

pls help me
do you know how i make clan events and sign my clan up for that clan weeks thing

Re:Abuse filter
Sure. First, make sure you check out Extension:AbuseFilter, Extension:AbuseFilter/RulesFormat, and Extension:AbuseFilter/Actions. You will also obviously want to look at Special:Abusefilter. You can create a new filter simply by clicking the link below the header (if you are a sysop). When you write a filter, you are writing a whole list of conditions that an edit must meet in order to be caught by that filter. Here's an example:

!"sysop" in user_groups &(article_namespace == 0 | article_namespace == 2) &((lcase(added_lines) rlike "ye(s|sh)"))

This filter will disallow any edits to the main and  user namespaces by non-sysops that add either   or   to the article. Checking the RulesFormat article is helpful in picking apart what it all means. You can also use the dropdown on the filter edit page in order to find out the meaning of each piece of code and make things easier. If you wanted to describe the filter above, it would read like this:

Once you have a filter, you can tick the boxes below the code to pick what action it should trigger, such as sending a warning message, fagging the edit, or disallowing it. It's a little hard to explain the whole thing, but that is the basic idea. I hope that helps, drop me a message if you have more questions. -- 18:32, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * tat version sucks. lemme explain it 2 u
 * basically, just press buttons and hope it worky
 * im so helpful, no?
 * But on a serious note, if you do have any questions, feel free to ask me as well. A brunette seems to have explained the basics pretty well there. 01:02, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Dont be so quick with the delete button
Can I ask you to place back Experience increasing gear template, I wasn't finished with it.

May I also ask you not to destroy other peoples work?

And it is connected, if you would have let me finish working on it -.- Shinigamidaio 18:13, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Re:Re:place it back?
Okay, I heard that, but it is a small collection of items that will always increase the experience you recieve ... that make them linked seeing as the Golden mining suit is the mining variant to the lumberjack suit ... you know its also a template that will allow users to easily find piece that will increase their exp harvest.

I see what you mean with the template-placeback but since I don't really believe in this community, I will ask you, who removed it without asking/consulting, please put it back.

Friendly greetings Shinigamidaio 12:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Its a sad sad world -.-
dude ... ugh ... why ... I put over an hour of work in it and you delete it in 5 seconds. My respect for you minus 100% and in all honnesty .... 1400 total lvl .. you should play the game before you start trashing someone elses work. Also ... does the template bother you? or does it contain wrong information. You need to learn to make a distinction between those 2. I'll add you to the hopeless cause list.

Lolololol
Hi - 07:32, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Lolololol
Hi - 07:33, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Lolololol
Hi - 07:33, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Re: what have you been talking about
Why does Matt use a pink theme...? And it's probably because some idiots falsely accused me of foot fetish. I guess the word "fetish" tripped the censor. I'll archive now, I guess, so that the page is cleaner and shorter. 14:19, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Grats!
Grats on being the User of the Month! 14:59, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

RE:slep
Fein. 08:52, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

IRC
Could you please be serious at serious requests next time, instead of making it worse? That topic stayed there for 3 hours, and I already said I don't like that. I'm not complaining when you are having fun with the topic, but when it's things like this, and I clearly ask you to remove it, I'd rather not have "lolololol" in my face. I thought you were better than this, seriously. 21:57, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Revdel
How often would you use it? 22:08, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * k 06:22, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

Re:Portal images
Ok, thanks for letting me know :) 18:31, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

blocking
I find your blocking of Hot man teat to be rather extreme. This is not a gathering of 7 year olds Mr Brains. You should always err on the side of not blocking rather than blocking. I have to say I am actually quite pissed off and need to stop now.--Degenret01 07:49, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I bring it up now because I just saw it. And I always get pissed at the misuse of tools and people trying to control others.--Degenret01 12:11, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Microtransactions/Selling your soul to corporations
Wow, this is really sad. I knew there would be some bad things, but I had no idea there would be microtransactions, auras, all this other crap. The corporatization of this game is going to kill it. 18:56, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock
next time remove it too when telling people they're unblocked.. =X 22:34, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Re:I'm a nub
rofl I must have been trying to type fast. lol, I hope that's the first time, I've written that speech a lot  02:30, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Last night's discussionn
So just to recap, more anti-vandalism and speedy-del tagging? 21:06, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

hurry up and come in the irc
plox 06:36, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

CVU
Why isn't he blocked? He has vandalized three pages today. 05:27, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, still going: http://runescape.wikia.com/index.php?title=Kalphite_Queen&diff=prev&oldid=4461045 05:30, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem.  05:34, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay, Aaron. We already know that you're a noob. 05:38, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ 06:11, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the closure of Forum:Another_look_at_the_Trivia_policy
Matthew has obviously edited trivia sections to know that plenty of "rubbish" finds a way into them. Specifically, plenty of "rubbish" finds a way into trivia sections despite the notability requirement in the policy. Obviously those inserting "rubbish" into the trivia sections do not read the policy; at least those inserting true rubbish do not.

However, those who read the policy and who have a valid trivial fact to contribute have their fact removed with reference to a section of the policy which is by nature contradictory and which only serves the purpose of clearing an editor's conscience should he decide to remove a fact that he personally thinks is not suitable.

My point in this message is that we as a community need to decide whether we want an easy place to put information for which we haven't bothered to create a section or whether we want trivia. If something is truly "notable," it belongs in its own heading of the article's main text, and true trivia is being removed from the trivia section for not being as "useful" or "important" as content which should not be in the trivia section.

I saw Magma put a lot of thought and effort into being beneficial to the wiki in that thread, those in opposition either contradicted themselves or refused to address Magma's quite valid points, and it seems to me that the thread was closed simply because there was no activity from June 21 to June 30.

Because I notice Magma's clear facts and the opposition's contradictions, I personally cannot understand the reasoning for opposing anything that was proposed in that thread. Since clearly nobody who needs clarification reads our trivia policy, it may stand for now that the detrimentally messy format remains, but need it not be pointed out again that the words "trivial" and "notable" are opposites, and certainly should the notability requirement be removed if we are to have a trivia section and not a "lazy" section.

As the thread's closer, your opinion on these matters is of interest to me. Leftiness 04:47, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

ReRe - In my opinion, Matthew talked circles around each of his points.


 * He asserted that our trivia policy is working while pointing out that we get a lot of "rubbish."
 * He said that thousands of people like trivia while pretending that "common sense" can dictate what those thousands of people like.
 * He claimed that we need a notability requirement to remove those things that truly don't belong in a trivia section while using it to remove those things that do belong, asserting that allowing facts on the basis of varacity would fill the sections with "rubbish," but that "rubbish" would be trivia, and we certainly don't need any policy to remove something that is not trivial or not true.
 * He asserted that rules and guidelines aren't everything while at the same time claiming that examples are paramount, claiming that we need to think about what we're adding to an article while at the same time asserting that it is absolutely necessary to spell out exactly what is and isn't allowed.

Magma called the current trivia policy "lenient," saying if anyone followed each of the trivia policy's sections to the letter that all trivia would be either added to the article's main text or deleted. I prefer the word "lazy," and he is correct because trivia is not notable or useful. Ever. If it is, it belongs in a non-trivia section.

He says that the policy fails because it's so specifically contradictory that it leaves people unable to understand, forcing those like Matthew to "clean up rubbish." Endlessly. A policy has been created in which there is no correct action, and the only people who end up successfully contributing are those with some sort of official or experential authority, those who group together to force their "common sense" on others, and those whose opponents simply give up attempting contributing to our broken system. In Magma's case, all three of those factors were against him positively contributing a fact which was useless, not notable, and obscure; it was a perfect instance of trivia.

Urbancowgurl summarized the opinion of the "common sense" group accurately, stating that "That sounds incredibly stupid on an informative encyclopedia - we're not quizzing people, we're just providing straight facts that are somewhat useful." As I said, we need to decide whether we want a section in which to lazily place information which belongs in the main text and for which we haven't created a section - or whether we want trivia.

Should we decide against having a trivia section, I would not be upset as it is the most logical decision should we maintain our standard that all information be notable and useful. However, that is not the case, and the interpretation of "trivia" has obviously gone askew from the literal and undeniable definition. Against that I argue. I can concede on correcting the detrimentally illegible formatting which makes the policy difficult to understand, but having a policy that is contradictory to itself is unacceptable, and allowing someone to emphasize each of its contradictory sides to suit his own needs and shut down valid points in a discussion is disappointing. Leftiness 00:36, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

ReReRe - I'm asking your reasoning for closing the thread as you did and comparing it to my own. In my opinion, you closed it incorrectly. Not necessarily was there any approval for the cleaner format despite my favor of it, but I disdain disregard of logic. In several instances, I've dealt with overwhelming opposition which is contrary to basic and undeniable fact. In this example, something that is trivial cannot be required notability just as something that is light cannot be required darkness and something that is quite clearly red cannot be required a blue hue. It is that simple.

Because of the contradictory requirements of our trivia policy, there is no "correct" action. As Magma pointed out and as I wrote above, every piece of trivia may be removed from every article under one of the rules. One might say "use common sense," which I despise, but you can't use common sense to say that something is both light and dark, red and blue, or trivial and notable.

You referenced an understanding of Matthew's arguments, so I did my best to show that I see no meaning in them. There are two sides to a contradiction. There is notability and there is trivia. There is "using common sense" and there is making explicit examples of everything. Just as there is light and there is dark, Matthew took both sides of each contradiction at one point in his commenting. If during the beginning of the discussion, one says that explicit examples are necessary, he cannot correctly switch his view to say that rules and guidelines are not everything and that we should "use common sense." Some of Matthew's statements were also impossibly presumptuous, like asserting that thousands of people love our trivia and then pretending that we could possibly determine which pieces of trivia those thousands collectively like.

We supposedly use a consensus-based system to prevent contradictions like the current trivia policy's notability requirement. Somebody is supposed to consider the decision and approve or disapprove. In a democracy-based system, a group of like-minded individuals can get together and force their idea of "common sense" on the entire community, and that is exactly what has happened. It is why we have a confusing policy, and it is used to only allow trivia on our pages that the like-minded individuals think is "good" trivia. However, the trivia accepted does not fulfill the trivia policy itself, and it is lazily placed in the trivia section because we "know" what trivia is. However, a truly trivial fact was called useless and not notable, and for that reason it was removed.

These are my disagreements with our supposedly consensus-based system, that at times our "consensus" is considered to trump law. At times our "consensus" somehow shuts down logic. We have a system partly based on democracy and partly based on "Yeah, I think that will work," and I can accept that, but contradictions to logic are a detriment to our wiki and an affront to the supposed system we uphold; consensus is meant to better our wiki, and we removed a trivial fact from the trivia section because it was trivial. Is that not proof enough of a problem? Leftiness 11:18, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

ReReReRe - Your responses are fine in their length. I'm initiating the discussion, so the burden of typing out long paragraphs falls on me.

That said, making the policy cleaner and simpler was one of the intentions. The majority of the walled garden of editors who care about the trivia policy have come to the decision that excessive bolding and italicizing and exampling are imperative to a successful trivia policy despite the fact that it still doesn't prevent the "rubbish" that they so disdain. However, I can concede on fixing the formatting for now as it is the minor issue.

The major issue is the notability requirement. Unfortunately, Magma provided a proposal with two points, and so it received a blanket closure. However, he can be quoted with emphasis added: "To point 3, this is where my major bone of contention is with the current policy. Trivia is not notable." I believe Magma is intelligent enough to understand what I mean when I say that clean formatting is the minor issue.

Even if the current policy were cleanly formatted, the major issue is that anybody who contributes trivia cannot be correct. Every possible contribution to a trivia section can be removed under one of the policy's contradictory requirements; a fact may be removed because it is not trivia, or a fact may be removed because it is not notable. There is no middle ground. There is no "common sense." Something is either trivial or it is notable, and it cannot be both, and it cannot be neither.

If you scroll up to my bullet points, you can see where I have provided similar opposition to each of Matthew's supporting arguments. He took both sides of each issue with the intent of shutting down Magma's logic and preventing a positive change. Because his arguments contradict themselves and because the policy contradicts itself, I believe it was wrong to say that the notability requirement received support. From another angle, which is the one you chose, there was not any opposition to remove the notability requirement - not any logical opposition, and logical opposition is required to determine that one side of an argument is "better" than the other. A statement is either logical or it is contradictory, and it cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Leftiness 03:38, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Gf maths?
"I have had four accounts, one forgotten, one hacked and my current one." Last time I checked 1+1+1 =/= 4. 01:58, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you list it with it, people tend to read bits and skip others, eg. me. 07:39, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Need Any Help?
Nah, I decided I liked the original Wikia skin a bit better and removed most of the script except for the hilite scripts since I like those a lot. Thanks anyway though. 06:11, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

RE:hai
If you go to the cvu, you'll notice a script to report a new vandal (for those who don't have autocvu). I'm not trying to automate the removal of vandals right now. It's easy if you do it semi-manually, but I want to fully automate it. 07:18, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, hopefully I'll be able to make it work soon. 07:21, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Psst
Hi (: Can you message me on IRC when you get on sometime today please? 23:09, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yus, just woke up. 02:06, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fergie", always Fergie. (: 02:20, July 16, 2011 (UTC)