User talk:Haloolah123

Leave me a new message.

O hi thur
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8443/haybeniceemokittehissen.jpg Say bye bye to your empty talk page >:-) 23:36, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Re:ABF
I said it because it is a valid concern. Tons of people view getting adminsip as some sort of trophy (you obviously know this), and having adminsip across a number of wikis can absolutely be a sign of that. Sure, sometimes it is just because the person is a good editor, but in this case I had plenty of reason to suspect otherwise. From the start, the way he interacted with our community suggested that he felt superior due to his experience as a sysop on other wikis, which is what caused my suspicion in the first place. Also, why would he basically tell us all to go to hell, and then work his way back up the ranks so that he could have a go at adminship? I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm giving my opinion based on my observations. -- 00:43, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Forum:Clan chat rants channel
Since when were non-admins allowed to close threads? Or are the rules different in RS:CCC. OR is it just bacause the proposal was "lunacy". 00:37, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Forum:Image hover text being listed on RuneScape:To do list
Just to let you know i've removed the item from the to-do list for the simple reason that it was not brought to consensus. However, just because consensus was not attained on the matter does not mean it has to be thrown to the side. I have seen suggestions that do not make consensus resubmitted with either different criteria or with at least a little fine-tuning of the objective's scope/focus in order that such idea can more easily obtain the necessary consensus to move forward. If you are sincere about this (which i believe you are since you did add it to the RS:TDL), then please consider resubmitting a refined version of this to the forums. Note, however I highly recommend not being hasty about it. Hastily resubmitted ideas often fall short of consensus the second time around and are then pushed back even further on the timeline (the wiki's logo is one such example, imo). With fresh perspective and clarity your vision can come to fruition. 23:44, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * ..."no consensus to use hover text" does not imply that there is "consensus not to use it". i was on wikibreak when this row started and i refuse to pick a side. seriously, i'm not the enemy here could you work with me on this?  00:53, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * True, i was not involved in the discussion, which is why i have asked Andrew to clarify if his declaration of closure of the topic was implicative of removal of all infobox alt tags. Alt tags are not necessarily useless, I use linux and as such i occasionally use the lynx browser. There are no images inside of a text terminal, where lynx runs, however alt tags that are thought out can be quite helpful. As a verbose example, if i saw "click to see Image:Orange.png" in place of the actual image i have a good idea what i will see if i follow that link in lynx.  /The only thing i am certain of is that i do not know everything, so, maybe you could share with me a better understanding of the issue as you see it.  01:21, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * At one point in time in this wiki, the images associated with items (like the whip) had gotten to point of having between 1 and 4 images on average in the article. In the infobox template was the item as it appeared in inventory. Next to the Stats template was often a picture of a player wielding or wearing the item (as applicable).  When available a more detailed image was placed at the very start of the article in the upper left corner. And the 4th image was an animated image of the special effect of the item, usually appearing below the infobox.  All four images are relevant, perhaps a more concise style guide needs to be made for how items, shops, and NPCs present their graphical information, including the meta-data about the graphics.  That way users that block the images can actually get a better wiki experience (regardless of whether those images are blocked by their browser or by wikia preferences). That would be the best way to seek the change i believe you are looking for.  01:31, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Dungeoneering floors
I'm aware the occult section should of been removed as it was based on a present tense... But why exactly is the warped floors section getting removed? It is a CONFIRMED future update in one of the Q&As and therefore warrants the ability to stay... 13:43, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bullet points
Hey, I have noticed your recent "campaign" against the use of bullet points in the Wiki. While I don't share any particular liking for bullet points, and wouldn't really care for Yew Grove threads/RfDs/etc using bullet points, I personally prefer to keep it consistent for whichever project page it is on. Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for not allowing your comments to have bullet points be added to them? Not to call you out or anything of the sort, but I'd certainly be interested to hear your reasoning. Cheers. 14:00, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I find it a bit of an eyesore to have a non-bulleted point follow a bulleted point, before being followed by another bulleted point. It makes the discussion look disorderly IMO. In any case, since this seems to be mainly a personal dislike of seeing bulleted points in the discussion, would you object to my adding of bulleted points when archiving the discussions? As the idiom goes, out of sight, out of mind. 14:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more of a pet peeve of mine than anything of a big deal, the same of which can probably be said to your dislike of bullet points. You don't have to add them in if you still rather not see them, although whether or not you'd mind if I added them in while archiving is the question I'm asking. 14:15, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 14:17, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Forum:Modification of RS:BOTS - Relating to AWB use
blah blah blah, details, ALWAYS focused on the details... 05:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Block
There's still some hope left. When I was younger, me and some kids at school would vandalise Wikipedia articles for fun. Now I have contributions here. There's always some hope. 16:38, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the Detroit Lions aren't very good? Maybe it's better not to use such American examples when the person you're talking to is European Anyway, I think that s/h/it still deserves a chance. Everyone deserves a second chance.  16:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * He's probably already forgotten about the RSW by then, and we've lost a potential good contributor. 16:53, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think that the chance of him becoming a good contributor would've been higher if he hadn't been blocked but only warned. 16:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Link to RuneScape.com
I really don't think you should have closed that. Policy states that only admins may close discussions. Also, this isn't the first time. 06:57, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine; as long as the consensus is clear, I doubt many people are going to complain. 13:20, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should stop closing forum threads. Its a useless gesture, since an admin still has to come and protect it, so its not like you save us work. More importantly, it sends mixed messages to other people. Only admins should close threads. If you think something should be closed, just post it on an admin's talk or on rs:ar or use Closure. But closing it yourself is not appropriate. Thanks, 01:33, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't take anything you said personally, but you appear to have done so. This is not about whether or not you are a good judge of when a thread is ready to be closed, its about not making needless exceptions to a policy which states quite clearly that only admins can close threads. Not applying that policy consistently is confusing to users and nullifies any point to making the policy in the first place. If you think the policy should be changed, feel free to make a yew grove thread about it, however until it is changed, you cannot close yew grove threads. 01:54, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't close threads. You're not capable of protecting them as part of the closing process. So there is no reason for you to try to close them, especially when there are so many other ways of contacting an admin to get them to close it instead. Doing so is a confusing gesture that serves no practical purpose. As such if you were really going to use common sense, you would not close them. Again I'll say it, you cannot close threads, unless you go to the yew grove and consensus says you can. I'm really quite shocked that you're arguing it this much as its plainly obvious that you shouldn't be doing it. 02:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are dismissing what I am suggesting because it is one man's opinion, yet at least 3 other people have ALSO told you that you shouldn't be closing threads, and furthermore you are declining the opportunity to get many more opinions on what you are doing because you think you have the clairvoyance to predict exactly what the outcome will be? I find that extremely illogical. 16:59, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to get involved in a debate between two other users, though I have mentioned all this to you before. A point that has not been brought up yet is that thread closure is an administrative task just as much as deletions, bans, and file moves are. The only difference is one can be done without the tools themselves, and the rest require them. None of us appear to be questioning your judgment, but the problem still arises that we are showing users we don't enforce the fact that only admins can close threads, meaning they are free to do it. RS:UCS should not be applied the way you are applying it. This is because if we allowed all users to close threads under UCS, it would completely defeat the purpose of the statement in RS:CONSENSUS to the point that we would have to remove it all together (and, at the same time, would be equatable to making all the administrative user rights global). Again, I am not questioning your judgment, and I respect you as a person and editor, but you need to stop closing threads. If you are unsatisfied, feel free to suggest the change on the Yew Grove. Thanks. 21:01, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since asking for input from the community at large seems to be such a minor point with you, I have taken the liberty of creating the thread for you, and you can find it here. I realise that asking the community what they think of you doing what you're doing, especially when it violates an existing policy, is just a huge waste of time, I have chosen to do so anyways. You see it is impossible to waste my time, because my time is worthless. 01:44, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic
That sucks. It happened to me today where I could get to the lobby but couldn't log in. I just had to refresh it a couple times. Anyway, I still have the stuff, so whenever you need it... 19:49, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote here.  10:37, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

UOTM
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT, Thanks for the nom :D 09:02, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Rollback
What I'm more concerned about is the fact that users have no idea what the requirements are and what they need to do to request rollback. It wouldn't be too big of an issue if the crats were very active, but that's not the case. The template is just extra since I've already moved it into a central location. 20:38, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Helper tag
Yeah, it has recently been added by Wikia. I don't know if I should use it here though, as it's main goal is to inform people about helpers on new wiki's where the Gaming Team offers it's help building content. 19:20, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would've been better. 19:30, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Looking back
This seems to be such a long time ago. Your edit count has progressed quite a lot since then. 20:37, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Thanks! Don't forget that the perception of crats differs quite a bit from the perception of sysops. 21:35, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Defining rollbacks
That was a joke, smart one. Defining rollback was a joke from Sentra. And don't be stupid, oversight, staff, helpers, VSTF, and facebook connect users will never need "defining". I am defining IP's. Many users think IP's are all vandals and non-contributors, I intend to clarify this. 00:07, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Think about this: Do you check IP edits more than registered users? 05:31, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * That was to Halo, right? 06:16, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a joke Halo, having a defining rollbacks would just be a waste. 06:26, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * @222:Yes it was.  06:58, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

The cc
Did you tell people that they have to be part of the wiki to be in the cc? A player said someone name "'halolohooo' or something similar" said so. Was this you, you little troll? 02:04, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Random thing
Hey Hal, if you were to file a third RfA, would you want to be hilited if that request passed? Just curious; your answer will not effect my opinion on you in any way. Thanks, 18:07, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Arrr...
Ahoy ,

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/matthew2602/pirate.png

HAPPY

INTERNATIONAL

TALK

LIKE

A

PIRATE

DAY

FROM MATTHEW2602

22:37, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Abortion
I couldn't have said it better myself. 02:09, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Images help
Hey Halo, since you have a high dungeoneering level, can you take a picture (with OOO) for Haasghenahk's first and second form? And maybe the spawns too? I think many people will appreciate that, because the spawns image is too small, and the images I uploaded are blurry..-.- Again, if you can, take a pic of Haasghenahk's 1st form and 2nd form, and the spawns. Thanks! 20:23, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

DBP
So, it's going to open soon. Are you still up for writing that perception/AEAE piece? 22:29, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

200 million experience
May I ask why you undid my revision? 01:25, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

UOTM
You've been nominated for UOTM. 01:13, October 1, 2010 (UTC)