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)

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)