User talk:Karlis

first comment?/Thanks
thanks for protecting teh page. --Gertjaars 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed, and am very proud :P

RuneScape item of the Week
I never said that. I just said that this article should be on Main space because it is OFFICIAL information. I have no say it what they choose so it's nothing to do with my character. Therefore, it belongs in Main space. I am prepared to continue this argument if needed.
 * User:JJ9630


 * I will be glad to show you here is the link: Go near the bottom of the page and you will find it. When you've seen it, message me if you will allow or disallow this article on to Main space.
 * User:JJ9630
 * I have asked Hurston to check it out for me and to tell you what he saw. He will reply if he's online. How long will it be till you get home?
 * User:JJ9630
 * It's the item shown at the bottom of the main Grand Exchange page as 'Item of the week'. I really can't see why we would need that here though, any more than copying the 'article of the week' from the main page.  17:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned?
Sorry for my recent rollback about the orphaned page, but I'm not familiar with this. Can you explain it to me :S. Thanks!
 * So, the link was from the server page about head banners. Why does the head banner need to be linked to something it has nothing to do with?

Thanks
Sweet, thanks for the info. I knew the rollbacks were for vandals, but I thought they could be used to revert edits faster. Yeah, I wondered how to further explain edits from Rollbacks, I guess that's why. TTYL!

OMG, another question...
Okay, so to help me better revert non-vandal edits, I've noticed some users state in summary "reverted edit 777456 by Example (Talk). Where does this 777456 come from? I can't seem to find the reference number. TY

Classified info
I just want to reiterate what I stated earlier because this is where we can reach consensus: information in articles needs to be verifiable. Whether it's classified information or non-classified information, such info may only be inserted into an article if it's actually germane to the article and if it can be verified by other editors. Mods have a a right click report option? Was it germane to the article? Yes. Was it verifiable by several separate sources? Yes. And so, it's in the article. Mods have a check user IP option? Is it germane to the article? Yes. Is it verifiable by several separate sources? No. So it doesn't go in. To me, this seems simple enough and also seems to be something on which we can form a consensus.-- 17:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you're basically saying that some classified information can be put in articles while other classified information can't, depending on whether it is verifiable? 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as I noted earlier, if it is verifiable, de facto, it isn't really classified. But regardless of the "classification" of the information, anything inserted into the encyclopedia has to be first and foremost verifiable, otherwise, several articles would be filled with spurious rumours.  If somehow "classified" information is made public— that is it's authenticity can be ascertained by several independent editors— and it is actually notable to be included within an article, then it may be included within an article.  If not, it can't be.
 * I think regardless of the issue at hand here everyone agrees that:


 * 1) for information to be put in an article, it has to be verifiable.
 * 2) Classified information is info that is not available to people outside a restricted group and consequently information that is verifiable by the editors, by definition, isn't classified.
 * If we all agree on these two premises than we can achieve consensus on this issue by stating that any information be it classified or not can be included if it is notable enough for inclusion and if it is verifiable.-- 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is at least a piece of common ground that I would have to agree with... other than I do think you can find some "classified" information that is verifiable that Jagex doesn't really want the general player community be aware of. Yes, I can give examples, but it isn't worth pushing the point.  I can give plenty of non-Jagex related examples of trade secrets that have become a part of the public domain.


 * Some rogue p-mod that wants to say "the heck with Jagex" and decides to post a bunch of stuff from the moderator center.... perhaps most if not all of that ought to be deleted due to the inability that the information can be verified. I can live with that as well.  I just don't buy the argument that "it is classified, therefore it must be removed from the wiki".  Just because Jagex doesn't want the information spread around is not a good enough reason, at least to me, for its removal.


 * This is also where citations can come in handy, where you say "according to RuneHQ, these are some guidelines moderators have for muting players....." THAT can be verified, and doesn't come directly from the Jagex website.  --Robert Horning 18:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Diberville has got me convinced--if it's verifiable, and germane to the article, then it should be added. Logically, classified information should not be verifiable, so technically speaking, that would prevent any truly classified information--stuff that would be dangerous if leaked--from showing up on the wiki. By the same token, all other "classified" information would now be available, so theoretically, that policy should satisfy both ends of this argument. --Thunderbird346 23:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why SHOULD we add this information to the Wiki? There's no "should." That makes it sound like it's imperative to have this stuff on the Wiki. It's not completely necessary to have this information, so I don't get what all these "shoulds" and "musts" are for.


 * I'm not against placing classified information on the Wiki. I just want to know what the purpose of doing so is. 00:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To stick it up to The Man. 00:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Must is imperative, should is conditional expectation. A human being should eat healthy food but must eat.  On this issue, any verifiable and relevant information should be inserted into an article as is the nature of this encyclopedia though none of it must.  But this minutiae seems moot since I don't see anyone yet having any serious problems with my above declaration of principles.-- 01:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like where I said that if Jagex ever publishes this information ingame or on any of their websites, then it doesn't matter. Like with the right click report option, which showed up within a picture in the knowledge base one day. If they put up a picture displaying the mod forums, go ahead and publish it, even though it was an accident they already released it to the public. But if it hasn't been released by Jagex and is thus unverifiable, then it shouldn't be put up. 01:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, Diber. And lol at Rendova. :P

I think you might be rather confused about the classified info discussion. What we're voting for on that page is whether or not we should put up information that Jagex themselves have released on their sites. For example, in the knowledge base, there was a picture of a jmod account right clicking another player, and it showed the "report abuse" right click option. On the Jagex main site there is currently a paragraph explaining how ingame moderators have to register with Jagex using their personal information.

Those are currently the only things I know of that would be added to the article, because they're the only ones that can be verified through Jagex's own publications. So basically, no moderators' status could risk suspension, the site itself runs no risk, and nobody could be banned or otherwise take any flak. And even if Jagex were to accidentally publish something truly sensitive (such as moderating procedures, ect) we wouldn't publish it. :) 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that the Player moderator centre article is fine as is, it provides factual information that all users are capable of verifying, and all of the necessary information that the general public should know. I appreciate your concern though, as I went back to re-read a bit more. However at this time I must remain with my original decision of Oppose. 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!!!
01:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!!!!!!!!
00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

phoenix
it is true that is was a misspelling and i thought it wasn't. But the page should receive the disambiguate status like the one below(delete after message is read) and direct to the different subjects this name covers ty --j-g 14:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

CVU
Just wondering if I'm doing right, reverting then reporting for the vandalism. --Eternalseed 16:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks.
Thanks Karlis. 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving? :(
Is the leaving related to the not supporting ideas in community, and if so, is it the classified information one? I'd really hate to see you leave; you're a good editor/person. :( By the way, you can e-mail me if you don't want it on-wiki. Butterman62 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. :) Butterman62 (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Question
Would you mind shooting me an email...? Got a few things to ask you. --Eternalseed 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Best of luck
Yes, Thanks, Likely I will return maybe in 1-3 months or until this semester I want that scholarship to the prestigious Notre Dame Law School!!!!!!!! Im Really lucky to get a scholarship there but I need a 4.0 GPA, Which I previously had a 4.0 but now It dropped to 3.8 I think it has to do with Runescape so I think Ill lay off until I get relaxed with my GPA. Well thanks and forgot to sign your comment --   C  O  L O   00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Account Trouble
I have tried several combination's of words and numbers with no success. I've had a name with 6 numbers at the end rejected. And I doubt someone is going to have the same 6 numbers as me with 5 different names lol.

Account Trouble
I have tried using the following names:

ratm06 ratm041808 Brianxbammo06 Brianxbammo041808 nygarxbammo09 Bkeener09

and many others.

Account Trouble
Okay, thanks for your help. I tried clearing my cache before each new attempt, I even tried switching to Internet Explorer. Nothing seems to work for me.. So I guess I will be keeping an IP name lol.

Is there any way for an Admin to create the account for me? I will provide my name and email and DOB =/ That's my last idea lol.

Account Trouble
I need to be logged in to see email lol.

When you come back we can figure out how to contact each other, i will most likely write my AIM name to you when you respond to me.

Thank you ^.^
Everything is in working order, thanks for your help

-ratm06-

Unblock an IP
This IP Address says that he was simply testing an edit and clicked "Preview" but seems to have misclicked and Saved the page, thus he was blocked. However, since he claims it was an accident and promises not to do it again, could you unblock his IP address? His form of "vandalism" wasn't the serious kind (profanity, inappropriate content) anyway. 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind, Gangsterls took care of it. Thanks anyway. 04:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Karlis, I have a quick question...

How can I make signatures like that of Calebchiam above this post? I've been messing the the Image thing, but it is not working

‎ratm06 06:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, problem solved. ^.^ ratm06 06:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:I can't really think of a subject.
Thanks, I do what I can, and thanks for the congrats. :) Feel free to drop by my talk page if you ever want to chat, and I always have space on my friends list if you want to add me on RuneScape. 02:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice phone. ^_^ What's your AIM username? (you can email it to me if you want so you don't have to say it on my talk page, I confirmed my email on Wikia). 02:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * suntigerrevival Though don't expect to see me on much before then. Christine will be thrilled. =D 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol I got confused for a second. First I thought I was on my talk page so I was going to move the comment, then I realized I was actually on yours. :P Added. I'd rather not say my screen name here since it is my actual name but I'll make sure you know it's me when I instant message you for the first time. :P 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You too, seeya later. ^_^ 02:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, why is your talk page part of the disambiguation category? 02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete dragon crossbow? it is a rumour and i clearly said this so it is not spam. thanks ~mr halkyard1

Anti-vandalizing
I think that we should stop all users from editing or creating articles until this problem has been solved.

CS
When will Central IPblock him? 16:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Site protect
Thanks for protecting the site. :) WWTDD? 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I protected 5 pages, and I'm gonna have to wait til tomorrow to unprotect 'em (can't access the Protection log). Who the hell is this guy, anyway? WWTDD? 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) WWTDD? 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume that this vandal has some sort of ISP where the IP address is assigned per session, within a certain range, such as 255.255.255.*. I have seen such a thing before. Do you know a way of finding out the IP address for a user? If so, we can ban the range. 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape:Yew_Grove
Just thought you'd want to see that. I think you did the right thing when you protected for 30 minutes. 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikia-wide block
Message from Azaz: Look into a Wikia-wide block for that vandal per the evidence on Sir Revan125's talk page. 04:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)