User talk:Leon Art

Here are a few pages to help out new editors such as yourself
About the RuneScape Wiki Answers to your frequently asked questions A list of policies for the RuneScape Wiki Help pages, your first stop if you need any help Editing help, in case you have questions on how to properly edit articles A guide to help you create your first article The style guide, containing all you need to know about formatting About userpages and how to make yours special Adding userboxes to your userpage, in case you want to decorate! Signature help, for customising your very own signature What vandalism is, and where you can report it [[Special:Chat|<span style="color:#09782A">Come and check out the Chat and get to know some of the other wiki editors.</span>]]
Please sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button () above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date. Signing your comments is important, as it lets other editors know who has posted which comments.

File:Meerkat.png|right|200px

Welcome to my talkpage, [user]!

Full archive of talks _________________________________
	Current talk page
List of old achieves
	First Archive - 2011 Archived on: 20:33 GMT, 25th May 2013
	Second Archive - 2012 Archived on: 20:38 GMT, 25th May 2013
	Third Archive - 2013 Created on: 20:42 GMT, 25th May 2013

Zaros

The description is bullshit so yes, it should be removed. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 18:53, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

It's speculation. We are not a crystal ball. Now please remove it, since policy prevents me from reverting. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 20:14, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I have and nothing of the like was said. It was just presented as something Zaros "might look like", so we know little more than that it's concept art. And idealiter, yes, but that isn't going to happen... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 20:21, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I modified the descriptions a bit, hopefully it'll satisfy you both. Also moved the chathead from the infobox, we aren't the Jagex wiki :P. Wahisietel (Talk) 11:37, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

M'kay, added it back. Also, something I only just noticed: His second age form has the 6 eyes that his other image has! His mask has 6 eyeholes on it, and you can see them glowing on his incorporeal/shadow form. I'm probably really late. Wahisietel (Talk) 12:06, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Seren and this elder god (probably the Freneskae creator-god have either a similar or the same symbol. Wahisietel (Talk) 13:54, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Responded. Wahisietel (Talk) 15:38, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Also, why did you add all those pointless thingies to Saradomin's alignment? Some of his followers associate those things with him, yeah, but they aren't his primary alignments. If we're gonna put every thing he's described as being there, we might as well put "good" and "hypocrite". Also also, this worries me. We had a discussion over having Philosophy instead of Alignment ages back and we decided against it (mainly due to things like "the dead" and "the sun" not being an alignment). Why are Also known as and Autonym above the image? It looks ugly. Why are the edit parameters next to things that are already filled in, and why is the width huge? Wahisietel (Talk) 15:54, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say he values Wisdom just a little bit less than order, but it's still very much part of his beliefs, he's pretty much always referred to as the god of order and wisdom, wheras he's very rareful referred to as the god of light, wisdom, ect :P. Wahisietel (Talk) 10:12, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Because most of them are referenced only one or two time, when Order and Wisdom are referenced dozens of time. Avoids the infobox being cluttered too. Tumeken is the god of Light/the Sun. Wahisietel (Talk) 11:42, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

RE

Not to be rude, but I comment on discussions on my own terms. I don't like being specifically asked for input, so please don't. MolMan 13:58, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Damage

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that a 0-byte edit like this "damaged" anything. Literally *all* I did was manually change Leafy Greens' formatting back to how he had put it, rather than how you thought it should be. Maybe you should look at later edits, including your own, to see where any "damage" was done, as it is far more likely to be the fault of the visual editor you insist on using. AnselaJonla 09:56, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

I got fed up of visual mode errors on my talk page after the last time you decided to use it to copy paste something, and so added a line of code that prevents visual mode from working. AnselaJonla 10:13, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Did you know you can actually completely disable visual mode in your Preferences?

RE:Thingy

Google. It isn't actually that difficult to find. Wahisietel (Talk) 12:10, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Also, please stop uploading duplicate files. Wahisietel (Talk) 12:51, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming bad faith, just wanted you to be more careful in future :P. Wahisietel (Talk) 13:52, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

VE errors

My atrocious memory just prompted me to ask about a couple of edits you made with the new VisualEditor in case they were bugs: [1] the spare * and #, [2] changing * to an # on the comment above you.

Hopefully you can remember these, if not don't worry. cqm 11:33, 21 Jan 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear: were the changes I asked about in the linked edits intentional or unintentional? If they're unintentional I was meaning to send in a bug report for them, if not sending in the report is a wild goose chase cqm 12:52, 22 Jan 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

Zaroats

While I agree it was said, we have no actual proof or anything we can source, and Mod Jack refused to confirm that it was said or if it was true. Today, he said that some lore that a lot of people are basing stuff on was actually revealed by a Jmod was actually false. So it's probably better to be safe than sorry. Wahisietel (Talk) 19:06, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

But we have no actual proof that this was ever said, we just have the accounts of some people who could be lying. And there's a chance that if this was said, they were wrong. Better to be on the safe side, isn't it? Wahisietel (Talk) 20:03, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

Mahjarrat template

Why put Bill in the "alive" category when we don't know if he's alive or dead? If we have to list him as either dead or alive, the "deceased" category would arguably be the better option, as it's all but confirmed he died. Wahisietel (Talk) 19:05, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Re:Zamorak

They don't win. You settle the damn edit war by talking it out, and if they're not replying, WAIT until they do so. Anymore wars like this and I'll have to consider permanently protecting other lore related pages. -- Spine^Talk 22:26, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not waiting for anything. That page stays fully protected until you settle the dispute. -- Spine^Talk 11:53, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

He did that so that the disputed attributed can't be changed without him having to protect the entire page.

On another note, comments like this are unacceptable. Particularly that first sentence. The tone of your entire response was disrespectful and sarcastic. Take a moment and think before you save the next time you're posting a comment in which you address another user.

MolMan 15:57, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

The same absolutely could be said about Fswe. I will be having a word with him later too. However that does not excuse you from being nice to people. --Liquid^Talk 16:09, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

You're doing it again. And to right to my face? I really don't care how you think he's acting; I see no outstanding inappropriate conduct on his part. You, on the other hand, are insulting and debasing other users. That is unacceptable, and it needs to stop. MolMan 16:13, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Fartwall isn't calling others a smartass. His behavior is by no means perfect; however, that doesn't make you innocent. Both of you suck at communicating respectfully to each other, but your attitude is sticking out more. I'm trying to give you a friendly warning, editor-to-editor. If this conduct continues, I'll summon an arbitrator. Yes, that is threat. Be nice. MolMan 18:14, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

I see you're still being overly demeaning towards other editors. Per Mol, be nice to others. 14:31, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Calabri?

How did you get your userpage to be calabri? :o --Scuzzy Beta    17:58, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Zaros

Would "Unique" serve as an acceptable thing to go in the race parameter, seeing as JMods have sid he's unique many, many times? He definitely didn't have an original race in the conventional sense, he has always been what he is: a god. Wahisietel (Talk) 14:30, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

We do know the answer though: He has no race. He is simply Zaros. But if we have to have his race named on the infobox (even though he doesn't have one) to have anything there at all, "God" would be the most accurate. Seriously, he literally has no race, in order to have one he would have to not be the only one of his kind to ever exist. Since he doesn't have one, "Zaros" is all that's need to describe him. Wahisietel (Talk) 17:48, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Template

You might want to check those template links you just spammed, since I moved it before you started spamming. AnselaJonla 16:38, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot you are English-deficient and therefore don't understand slang terms. I will try not to use these in the future. Also, I moved it before you added it onto any pages, as I already said, therefore there was nothing to fix when I moved it. I am so sorry I thought you would notice on your own that you were creating redlinks and make an attempt to investigate why. Or do you not use preview/check the edit you just made? AnselaJonla 13:13, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

What?

What the hell do you think you're doing? Do you not know policies? -- Spine^Talk 10:52, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Weakness

It's not a weakness. When you describe it as one, you're completely wrong, and you're changing the meaning to an arbitrary definition that favors your erroneous desire to have it listed. Weakness has already been defined already in hit chance; a weakness, when taken advantage of, will give you an increase to your accuracy. We have slightly modified the definition to allow for effects on damage, such as with blisterwood and silverlight; however, that is as far as it goes. That's all we recognize, and for practicality's sake, we don't immediately include every such weakness in the template. Even if these abilities could be considered a weakness, they are already documented clearly in the writing, and that is sufficient. What moreso proves my point is that they are only countered by these abilities, and only so when they are using their special attack. By listing these abilities as unqualified weaknesses, you are purporting that these attacks are always an advantage over the airut, when they're actually not. As a counter example, one of the Kalphite King's attacks is to be countered by using Provoke, but can you call that a weakness? No. The ability to counter an attack does not necessarily mean you're taking advantage of a weakness It'd be presenting false information, which we're not going to allow to happen. If, say, you could qualify it in the infobox, you'd be smooshing the text together, at which point it becomes pointless to even include it even in the parameter. So even if this was a legitimate weakness, it'd make no sense for us to have it in the infobox. You have multiple people disagreeing with you, and what you want isn't even possible with how the template is set up, so please kindly leave the parameter alone. MolMan 20:41, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily make it a weakness. They are not weak to the attack, but they become more vulnerable to the abilities when and only when they are using their special. It's less of a weakness, more of a strategy. As I already said, if the abilities are just in there as an unqualified weakness, the information we'd be presenting would be wrong; if we qualify it, the extraneous text defeats the purpose of the quickness of an infobox. Above all that, it is impossible to display them without making changes to the templates that I don't want made just for a single page. The compromise is already in place: the usage of these abilities is mentioned in the strategies section. It's just not practical to attempt to explain a vital part of strategies in an infobox. Tell me a good reason why a detailed explanation of a strategy in the article isn't good enough; how an ambiguous mention of it in the template is helpful. MolMan 15:52, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your edit on Abyssalbane bolts

Hi, I saw your question about abyssalbane :)

If you have low accuracy on abyssal demons when using royal bolts, bane's a better choice. If you don't have accuracy problems though, there's no need to use bane. (I melee abyssal demons actually because they're weak to melee :P)

In case you're interested, the J-mod post regarding bane ammo is here.

Also, bane's damage buff is currently bugged; it's dealing something between level 70-75 damage, not 75-80 :/ You can see details on post #59 of that thread. Logialian (talk) 06:50, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Looks right, but I think you'd still get better accuracy with the BGS (not sure though). Unless bane gets another buff, I think the BGS is better, but if you don't miss with abyssalbane you can use that instead.

BTW, if you want to help bane get fixed, you can support my thread ^^ You can also bump this thread :P Logialian (talk) 06:09, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Latin

It's not Latin. It's Infernal. What even is Latin? User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 13:45, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, it doesn't exist. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 15:03, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is no such thing as "Latin". The demons' names are Infernal - not Ancient Dwarvish, not Wyvern, not Hfkjdfsdhuj and not Latin. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 12:38, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Latin. There happens to be a language like that in real life, and Infernal is a reference to that, but there is no Latin in-game. Stop being so headstrong... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 13:12, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you know? Infernal language is a reference to IRL Latin language, and their names happen to coincide with words in Latin, therefore they mean the same in Infernal. That doesn't mean Latin exists in RS. Also, a vandalism warning? Really? You're the one breaking 3RR. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 15:01, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LATIN, HOW MANY TIMES TO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT. STOP BULLYING ME. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 14:22, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

RS:TRIVIA

If something is not an obvious reference, leave it out. If it is quite possible that a character, item, quest, or other object in the game is referencing multiple people, places, or events, do not include it. Only clear-cut references may be added.

If something is based on an archetype, then anything else under that archetype can be considered similar. In this case, it's H.A.M. and the arbitrarily chosen KKK. The mod himself says they are similar, but that they are not based on the Klan in anyway that he can confirm. Stop adding the false trivia. MolMan 12:55, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, he's saying that if you are asking what something is a reference too, it probably isn't a reference. It's grasping at straws. Take for example, the ray. That reference is obvious, and, thus, I don't need to ask what it's a reference too. Now let's say I want to *find* a reference for Puffer. Well, first off, there isn't one, but I decide to ask myself "What is 'Puffed up.' a reference to?" That is the meaningless part. John even said that he can't confirm for certain whether they are or are not. Unless he can get in contact with that dev and get an absolute yes on the reference, then it's a stern no for adding that trivia. MolMan 13:08, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

No, it really is an obvious reference. Have you never had to sing "Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do"? It's a very obvious reference. And you're trying to diminish the value of legitimate references as a means to strengthen the relative relevance of your weak link. I don't need to ask about the solfege because it so blatant. Anyone who has dabbled just slightly in music theory will understand the reference and make an immediate connection. It can also be linked directly to and only to that method of singing scale degrees. When you asked John, he said he can't confirm it as an obvious reference. Actually, he weakened any connection between the Klan and H.A.M. by stating that the H.A.M. aren't necessarily modeled after a particular group and rather an archetype. It's trivial from there that 2 groups following the same archetype will have some similarities. Had you made the connection that perhaps the H.A.M. were modeled after the Black Panthers, you'd probably receive the same response that they share similarities. The truism, "correlation does not entail causation" comes into play here. Yes, they are similar, but John said the correlation is attributable to the fact that they follow the same archetype, rather than the Klan directly inspiring the concept of the H.A.M. MolMan 14:18, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

You're starting to argue irrelevant semantics. All 3 of the mentioned groups follow the archetype of the classic hate group. John was obviously hesitant to make such a definite connection between two members of this archetype. You're trying to interpret his words in a way that defend the connection, even though nothing he said actually does. That's not legitimate trivia. MolMan 14:59, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

You're the only one adding the trivia. There is no standard procedure for where to discuss an issue with a page. If there's only 2 people involved, it can make sense to use user talk pages. MolMan 15:07, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

He made no definite connection. You're trying to boost the strength of "probably" to "certain". You are either misusing the word "literally" or misunderstanding what he meant. What it literally meant is more close to "I can't say that they were based on the KKK, particularly not entirely, but I can see where you can make the connection." His thing about "meaningless" was actually referring to both of your questions. It's not a case of me "not seeing something", that's more you. MolMan 15:17, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

I've grown tired of the argument. The people whom I asked for a second opinion all agree with there being no real connection, some of them even believe that the connection is inappropriate and not suitable for the wiki. MolMan 15:59, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

John A did not create the HAM, therefore he cannot say for certain what all they are based off of. Do not add it to the page. 17:36, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

RE:Mazchna

It was said by Mod Jack that he's a lesser demon. Wahisietel (Talk) 12:20, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Gods

Osborne said that IN HIS OPINION, tier 7 beings are not really considered gods for the purposes of Sliske's game. The ACTUAL GAME says multiple times that Apmeken, Crondis ect are fully fledged gods, and indeed, they are divine entities on on the tiers of godhood that are worshipped by a significant portion of the desert, which does in fact make them gods. In game stuff > an off-hand remark by Mod Osborne anyway. Also, please review RS:3RR, because you seem to have completely forgotten that you cannot just revert reverts without any discussion whatsoever with the mere justification that "you're wrong and I'm right". Wahisietel (Talk) 12:04, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Having a listen to the podcast again, he does actually refer to them as demi-gods, and says that they are "not what I would consider gods myself". At any rate, they are definitely not false gods like Lucien or Quin, since they are actually divine beings :P. Wahisietel (Talk) 12:21, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

I did listen to it, he refers to it as the borders of godhood, that contains demigods, aspects of gods, ect. And that they are not what he would consider gods themselves. Netherless, they are on the tiers of godhood, and ingame information explicitly refers to them as gods. They are not in any way False Gods. Even if Osborne did definitely say that they are not gods (which he didn't), off-hand statements made by Osborne are not a reliable source of information, he has got numerous things wrong in the past (like Chaeldar being a Guardian of Guthix). All information in-game says that they are gods, and not having them on the god template, labelling them "false gods" and listing them amongst entities that aren't even composed of divine energy is just silly. Wahisietel (Talk) 16:31, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't revert any reverts, I simply reverted your edit with an explanation. You then reverted my revert, which is indeed in violation of that policy you just quoted. Wahisietel (Talk) 16:33, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Plague's End FAQ gives us confirmation that what Mod Osborne said was not intended to be a statement that the desert demigods are not gods, but rather his opinion. Specifically, he said "I question whether tier 7 is true godhood, however.. So... can we put them back on the template now :3? Also of note that in the context of the discussion he was using T7 to refer to the avatars not being true gods in his opinion. Wahisietel (Talk) 16:05, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

This edit

Did you make this edit whilst acknowledging what Mod Osborne personally said about them not being real gods in his opinion? – Ozank Cx 12:14, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

If Osborne was making a statement saying that they were not gods, he would say so and not use phrases like "I'm not sure" or "In my opinion" or "probably".Since he did use those phrases, we cannot take what he said as a factual "they are not gods". Especially since we have definite in-game information that says they ARE gods, which supersedes what Mod Osborne says may be a possibility. A reliable JMod quote would be something that isn't directly contradicted by in-game information and has had more than one JMod speak about it. Anyway, we could note on the gods page that whether or not T7 gods are true gods has been called into question, but as they're divine beings, they definitely belong in the template and should not be in the "false gods" section. Wahisietel (Talk) 19:34, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

Game > Mod Osborne. What he says isn't really relevant until it finds is way into the game. Also, MattHe said 'yeah' so there's two Jmods stating it? Really? User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 06:31, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Mod Edam has not worked at Jagex for over a year. But fine, I will respond to all your points.

"At around 28:30 of the podcast Osborne says, literally, the following: "I think one of the problems with the tiers of godhood is that tier 7 isn't actually godhood." Osborne says directly a moment before that they "are not what he would consider gods himself"

The only mods we have agreeing with him are Mod MattHe, who is just a Community Management mod.

Unless you find a source where Osborne says "they are not gods", then they should go back onto the page. Because at the moment, we only have him saying that they are "not what I would consider gods myself" and "I question whether T7 is true godhood". Heck, he didn't even say that he didn't think they were gods, just that he doesn't consider T7 to be "true godhood", which is true, since in the case of the desert deities, they are demigods. At any rate, would you have any problems with putting them back in the page but noting that Mod Osborne has said that he isn't sure if T7 is true godhood? Although IMO such a note shouldn't be there since the opinion of one mod (even if it isn't Mod Osborne) is not a canonical fact. Wahisietel (Talk) 09:28, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Also, using Lucien and Saradomin is irrelevent since the game itself says multiple times that Lucien is not truly a god, and furthermore Saradomin has never claimed to be the one true god. It's true that Mosborne and co have said that Lucien was a god, but that's the thing, he said "Lucien was not a god". He has not said "Apmeken, Crondis, Het and Scabaras are not gods", just "I question whether or not T7 is true godhood, however." and "T7 is not what I would consider gods myself." Wahisietel (Talk) 09:32, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if trolling... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 13:29, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

PS. @Karamjan gods: if you want to discuss that for some reason, use a talk page, since you can't revert my edit. But I don't see what could possibly be discussed...nor am I inclined to discuss anything until you apologise for last time. And change your attitude. Just a heads up. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 13:32, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

"I think one of the problems with the tiers of godhood is that tier 7 isn't actually godhood. So tier 7 in the tiers of godhood is kind of demigoddery, aspects of gods, avatars of gods, avatars of gods. These are all fractions, pieces of gods. So they're not considered what I would consider gods myself, so them being on the tiers of godhood is probably slightly confusing." And then he later said "I question whether tier 7 is true godhood, however. in the FAQ. Way to leave out the parts that don't support your argument :P. And where are you getting the point that I think we should disregard all Jmod quotes from? I'm fine with JMod quotes if it isn't just an offhand comment they made or an opinion. If we take this particular quote as fact then we might as well put Zaros in the antagonists category and add "ZAROS IS EVIL" to his page because Mod Jack said that he sees him as as villain. Wahisietel (Talk) 07:51, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Um, what? The thing I just quoted is from the Plague's End podcast, from the EXACT same section that you just quoted at me >_>. And the other quote is from the Plague's End FAQ, which came AFTER that quote. And yes, a JMods thoughts are pretty much irrelevant once they no longer work for the company, since they have no influence over what gets added in-game. The only reason we listen to JMod quotes are is since they have influence over what gets added to the game. And even Edam just used the phrase "not strictly gods in their own right". Wahisietel (Talk) 15:43, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well, we have no way of knowing since he is no longer a Jagex employee. And the most recent word we've had on the subject only has Osborne using the words "I question". And that's only in reference to the avatars, and Apmeken, Crondis, Het and Scabaras are pretty distinct from them. Wahisietel (Talk) 15:27, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to say that Osborne agreed at the time, remember that tier document was at the time only intended for internal viewe ship and not for public consumption. If he agreed with it now he wouldn't be using the words "I question whether" and "Not what I would consider". Wahisietel (Talk) 16:48, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

If it was a fact then he wouldn't be using the phrases "I question whether tier 7 is true godhood" and "not what I would consider true godhood" Wahisietel (Talk) 09:12, September 6, 2014 (UTC)

You can't just go and revert the gods page to your version when the discussion we were having was never resolved. Especially when you cite a barely-related discussion from 2013 to imply that it was resolved. Regarding the twitter statement that you cited as proof, it says that they are demigods. Wahisietel (Talk) 09:36, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your message due to another one Ansela made a few hours later, I assumed that was the only new one. The term "demi-gods" is also used to refer to Icthlarin and Amascut, are you going to say that they're not gods too? At any rate, in wiki terms, it does not matter what Mod Osborne said, you cannot just make a change when the discussion about it was never resolved. You should have left me another message. Regardless, you definitely should not have reverted back to your change "because mod osborne said I'm right". Wahisietel (Talk) 12:45, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I don't know what the problem is between you two, but you need to stop edit warring. I don't really want to block you, but if you continue, that's what'll happen.  Gaz Lloyd _7:^]^Events!_99s 14:42, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

There is no relevant reason. The kind of reverting that goes on between you two (and others in the lore 'scene') should be reserved only for blatant vandalism. If what it takes for you to not conflict is to not edit the same articles then do so. Mainspace page histories are not places to have arguments.  Gaz Lloyd _7:^]^Events!_99s 00:45, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Prifddinas

I noticed that in the History section of Prifddinas there was nothing on the city's regrowth. As such I attempted to summarise the events of Mourning's End Part I through to Plague's End in that section, as Prifddinas#Regrowth. If you want to look over it and fix anything I missed, misremembered or otherwise got wrong, it would be appreciated. AnselaJonla 21:20, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

I made a few changes to Arianwyn as well, after someone saw fit to just c+p the Plague's end section of Lord Iorwerth onto the page (in visual editor as well, so the coding was a mess). Go nuts fixing it. AnselaJonla 02:17, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Due to your breach of RS:UTP throughout the year and your recent conflicts on Gods breaking RS:3RR, I am blocking you for three weeks.

You have been warned excessively, even from me. You have been blocked three times (twice since my warning) for breaking one policy, and none of those have even factored your breach of RS:UTP, such as on Talk:Zamorak. I have told you: if you want to change something controversial, you must completely discuss it with the relevant users (Ben, Fswe) and reach a verdict. And you have failed to do this. (For your comment here, this isn't a good excuse. Clarification should be obtained. I want to see both of you agreeing to one point, not assume "oh he didn't respond I win").

I honestly don't care who is right in your argument. It's completely irrelevant. You're not abiding to these policies that are so easily avoidable, so I'm blocking you. Haidro 13:57, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Re: undo

Yep, I noticed. Also, User:InvalidCards/TaskTable might interest you.  InvalidCards  11:47, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you would compare that table and User:Leon Art#Tasks, they may seem oddly familiar... =3 Basically I took borrowed your table layout and made it into a template using some l33t wikicode h4x  InvalidCards  21:02, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't. The template has two parameters for each task set (excluding Burthorpe and Taverley because there is no equipment reward), namely the level of the equipment item you currently have and the amount of tasks completed in that area. You could have all tasks done in an area and not have the equipment item for all the template cares. If you check User:InvalidCards/TaskTable/doc, you see exactly what you have to pass the template to make it work.  InvalidCards  13:58, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

Stop

What another site says is completely irrelevant. Stop adding that in. MolMan 15:21, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

Fo shizzle, it doesn't matter what the Hamflax Wiki says, it isn't relevant for our wiki. 15:25, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Tuska Results

Jagex hasn't released numbers; I had to look at the size of the bars themselves. That's why there's a column for the time (UTC) that we save the results.

Maybe Jagex will give it to us sometime. Sojurnstrs (talk) 00:48, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Long time no see, how are you?? Duke Quael ^Talk 03:12, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

Nice, grats, I am fine, was argueing to someone in the Tallk pagee of the godless, Course u can jump in, it;s a open discussion. ALSO Th new god, V, if he is a threat... oh god ~  Duke Quael ^Talk 15:32, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

Nice lol yeah your a sly lol. Nice job btw lol. But yeah a new god. But mot the one they said that will become. Lol they are trying to distract us now. Duke Quael ^Talk 19:30, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

 NVM, Don't worry. lol Just bit tired from the Talk abotu the Godless page. Duke Quael ^Talk 10:21, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

Zanik

1. Please leave edit summaries when you're reverting or undoing edits unless they're blatant vandalism. I seriously doubt this is the first time anyone's told you this and I know it's not the first time you've added contentious content. It's getting ridiculous now.
2. Sexual orientation is not an appropriate topic for trivia. I don't know why you thought it was, but common sense should really apply here. If you disagree, feel free to create a forum to update RS:TRIVIA. cqm 09:08, 9 Jun 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being prude, but I seriously doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.

It also slipped my mind what 3RR actually was and that you've managed to violate it again despite 4 previous blocks. With that in mind, I'm blocking you for 2 months and ensure that this is your last chance. RS:3RR is not a difficult policy to follow, but please read it again before your return to the community. cqm 09:47, 9 Jun 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

In my memory I did type a reason as to why I undid his revert. Though it seems it didn't come through, idk why, but I agree I should've been more careful. However, to the meat of the matter: Fsw claims it's not true, since a postbag states otherwise. But that goes against what we've decided, as a wikia as a whole. You might remember this discussion where this is a source for what I wrote - among others, it involved all three of us (you, fsw, and me). In it was was stated that it ought not only count for the God letters, but also for the novels and Postbag (and merely that the Post bag page doesn't state this doesn't make that ruling void, otherwise that should've been mentioned because else... you know paradox). After a looong discussion, we got an agreement that pleased everybody, which was summed up as follows:

Remember: The God Letters are only considered to be canonical as long as their information does not conflict with other sources, in which case these sources take precedence.

As you might see from the source I included in my edit, I basically copied it verbatim.

I disagree with your statement that it's "contentious", sure Fsw disagrees with me, but on person disagreeing with me (especially if the facts clearly discredit that opinion) that doesn't mean that it's "contentious" by default. This was an exchange between ONLY fsw and me, no-one else seems to disagree (so far). How does that make it contentious?

Yes I do think you're being very prudish, very much so. I'm not saying you're the only one, there are whole schools of thought that think an ankle is too sexual - so don't worry you're not alone. But that doesn't mean it's reasonable to be prudish about this topic. However, and firstly: nothing sexual was stated at all(!). I'm not going to be childish and state all the possible things that are and are not sexual in nature what is, but 'romantic interest' not not equal 'sex' by default. Secondly, I have not seen anywhere that it says you should stay clear from 'sex'. And, thirdly, to point out inconsistencies, if so... would you remove these (2nd trivia point and same for this one) mentions of 'sex' too? To me they seem nearly indistinguishable. Those are just two examples from the top of my mind that I know are on this wikia. There might be others. Furthermore/Forthly it's really rather interesting for merely a trivia. idk if you're aware, but even in today's Western liberal society LGBT rights and representation is still hotly debated. Many, if not most, things in media still fail the simple Bechdel test. A similar test of LGBTs would have even bigger fails. And even in RS this would be rather exceptional, as evidenced by the comments of the mods in the source - especially because Jagex is an open organisation in that (and other) respects: so doubly interesting I'd say. This certainly warrants it to be part of the Trivia, I think.

I would create a forum update on RSTrivia or Commonsense, but... it seemed you blocked me from doing that, so that's impossible. Which I really don't understand... It's called 3RR: Three Revert Rule. I'll walk you through it, in order of... appearance:

1. I make and edit
2. Fsw reverts it - revert 1
3. I re-revert it - revert 2
4. you Re-re-revert it - revert 3

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I broke it here, if anyone did it.. YOU did: you made the 3rd revert. I'm really tired of this unfair bias against me. idk if fsw dislikes me or even knows the 3RR rule. But this is not really what I'd call nice. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 14:27, June 9, 2015 (UTC)

I'll address the 3RR rule first as it's the basis or your block. What you've done is add something via an edit, and it's subsequently been removed. Seeing as an edit summary was provided, it's obviously not a mistake or accident and is genuinely a point of contention. You then udo that removal knowing full well that no one can then touch it without reaching a compromise with your approval. Ignoring that this is unlikely given your history, you've essentially managed to game the system. What should have happened is that you saw the undo, you then contact the party in question and explain why you thought it was relevant, not just blindly undo without an edit summary (which don't just magically disappear).

Moving onto the nature of the trivia, you don't seem to understand sexual orientation, which isn't the same as romantic interest. I don't see how western culture's overall treatment of the LGBT 'group' (I've no idea what the politically correct term is in this case) is at all relevant either.

Perhaps the trivia can be altered to include the difference of opinion in the postbag, I don't mind, but I also feel the trivia is highly subjective and not all that noteworthy. It's a side effect of a game mechanic rather than something that was purposefully written into the game. cqm 08:30, 10 Jun 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Ah, that's nice. You accuse me of gaming the system, without having any evidence at all, besides a vague reference to "my history", not even providing anything to support that baseless accusation. When ever people have a discussion with me, I engage with them, I finish the discussion to a conclusion. (I dare you to find a case, I'd bet on it. If there even is one, it might just be because I didn't notice it - but I won't even go there.) While in actuality fsw is the one gaming the system. He refuses to respond, knowing I'n not allowed to 'revert' it until a (joint-)decision is made, but he just won't respond. Meaning: I have to take it, that is gaming the system is it not? And it's being condoned by Liquidhelium, although I have no idea what his authority is. And in another similar case but the a lesser extent here too, which is also evidenced by his reaction here.

So because you merely (and falsely) suppose that I would game the system, you have given yourself the justification to block me for a 3rd revert. That's ludicrous, especially because it's a revert that I have not made at all: I'm being punished for someone else's crime without being given a chance. What ever happened to "good faith"?

If Fsw disagrees with me, then that's a disagreement, that doesn't make the topic of our disagreement "contentious content". I'm sure you're just conflating terms unintentionally, but still, that should not be my problem.

I do understand the difference between sexual orientation and romantic interest. You don't seem to know the difference between sexual orientation and sex. In addition to that, I urge you again to look at the source, it was a direct quite of the Jmod in question - Mod John A (yes, this was also another error of Fsw, since he claims it was not the case).

The context of LGBT community (which is, I think, the generally accepted and used term) within the larger society is indeed something that can make something in a fantasy game more interesting. And seeing as quite a significant proportion of the population (also the population of people playing RS) is part of the LGBT-community, while there are no recognizable LGBTs in game, is a rather divergence.

It was not necessarily dependent on the game mechanic. See, for instance, the Princess Astrid & Prince Brand examples I mentioned earlier to you. Additionally, the quest Recruitment Drive also shows there's away around this. Furthermore, it's not necessary to have a (potential) romantic relationship between the player and an NPC - if the choice is made to do so, only then is it the case. I don't see how it's highly subjective at all: "Mod John A has just confirmed to me that Zanik can actually be considered bisexual, in part because of her potentially romantic interest with the player. :)".

Yes, perhaps... but... that's difficult to discuss properly, you know... with me being blocked... . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 15:56, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

No, you were gaming the system. The evidence is here. The evidence is in your edits. You are gaming the system right now in your response. You're trying to take the meaning of the 3 revert rule literally to mean the policy starts at the third revert. The policy exists to prevent edit wars, which you have a penchant to start.

Overall, your verbose replies here aren't really helping your case. At this point, no one cares about the actual trivia; they care about your edit warring.

You should also avoid these silly red herrings. The LGBT community within games and LGBT representation in media is completely irrelevant.

You edit conflicted me with an abrupt retraction of your banter, but I'm still going to say what I took the time to type. MolMan 16:06, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

1. You made a lore related edit
2. Fswe reverted it
3. You reverted Fswe

“	In the case of lore-related articles, do not in substance revert a previous revert to the article.	”
— RS:3RR

You can try to turn onei into the bad guy all you want, but it's not going to help your case. He acted as an uninvolved administrator and reverted the page to the status quo that existed before the dispute. MolMan 12:30, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oh... I... see what you mean. I totally looked over that part. My sincere apologies, I'd take everything back. It's clear to me that I was utterly and completely in the wrong here. I'm very sorry that I merely read the 'higher' parts of the 3RR part. It was very lazy on my part. I just assumed it would be 3RR for any article, including lore, but it is not. Yes, I'm very sorry. I don't know what else to say. Sorry for causing all this unnecessary problems. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 16:02, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Russo test

Hey, nae sure if you ken this, the LGBT test equivalent of the Bechdel test is the Vito Russo test, which has similar criteria but rather than focusing on the interaction between characters focuses on the importance and relevance of characters. Had it been explicitly stated during any goblin quest that Zanik was bisexual then it would have passed the test Ciphrius Kane 14:27, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Stuffs

• Elite clue: 24-06-2014: 12:50, skelettal horror: 150,008 - 18 antifire, 1 yew, 9 misc tele
• Max cape: 24-july, 19:35
• Effigy: 26-07: 00:00 Morvran dark beasts
• Elite clue: 29-7, 21:38, skeletal horror: 284.102 - 5 rune bars, 12 onyx bolt tips, 1 bandos stole, 9 super restore (4), 15 royal dragonhide
• Elite clue: 07-08 evening, skeletal horror: 415,845 - 9 antifire (4), 1 palm tree seed, 1 papaya tree seed, 100k coins, Armadyl platelegs
• Elite clue: 15-08-2015, Barrows brother's chest - 288,145 - 80 mahogany planks, 9 super restore (4), 1 Ancient Crozier, 8 battlestaffs
• Elite clue: 18-08-2015, 16:29:steel dragon (Morvran) - 294.712 - 8 bstaffs 1 wolstaff, 2 papaya seeds, 2 yew seeds
• Elite clue: 18-08-2015, 21:51 - skelettal horror: 214,688 - 2 yew seeds, 16 bstaffs, 60sara arrow
• Elite clue: 19-08-2015, 19:33 - skelettal horror: 259.247 - 15 royal dhide, 9 super restore (4), 50k, 9 prayer pot (4), 1 yew seed, 6 polly teleport
• Elite clue skelettal horror: 117,412 - 2 lantadyme seed, 10 unicorn horn, 1 papaya tree seed, 2 dwarfweed seed, 7 bandit camp teleport
• Elite clue 7-9-2015, 00.01 - desert skrykewyrm Morvran - 114,827 - 1 crystral triselion fragment 2, 10 unicornhorn, 2 rune platebody, 9 prayer potions (4)
• Elite clue 7-9-2015, 19:59, skelettal horror: 237,767 - 1 rune platebody, 2 uncut dragonstone, 15 swamp lizard, 9 super restore (4), 40 mahogany planks, bandos stole
• Elite clue 7-9-2015, 23.16 - desert skrykewyrm Morvran: 240,750 - 30 royal dragonhide, 15 swamp lizards, 1 yew seed, 14 biscuits
• Elite clue 22-09-2015, 22:31, skelettal horror: 255,270 - 1 rune platebody, 5 rune bar, 2 uncut dragonstone, 9 prayer potion (4), 12 onyx bolt tips, 10 miscellania teleport
• Elite clue 07-11-2015, 17:02, pickpocketing Meilyr worker:

. . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 21:39, September 30, 2015 (UTC)

"I never knew taste was objectively verifiable, please, do show me the research!"

I do wish you'd keep your thoughts to yourself around me. I'm VajraShoyru on reddit, so you just basically called my opinion "bad" when it's a cold hard fact that the Zaros morion was not done "all-out" by the graphics team. It's an existing ingame item that had part of it removed, that is LAZY. Why people don't seem to get that is beyond me. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 13:00, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

If that IP is you, I am not amused. I have a right to speak my opinion. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 19:20, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood the purpose of your message. I'm not really sure, other than that I was disgruntled and upset from events earlier in the week. I suppose I just needed to get it out, so I did so by whining about a controversy. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 22:54, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

I most certainly can. =) --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 02:29, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Mining and Smithing rework

Hey, I don't think this information is accurate any more. It is from 2013, and since then the rework was abandoned and then picked up again. The original ideas were from Mod Jack and, if content developers is correct, he's no longer developing content and so someone else must have taken over. I would guess a lot of these ideas would also not be going ahead (e.g. fusing things together) as they would seem to be now incorporated into Invention instead. So I do think it's unlikely that the currently planned rework will be using these ideas, and I think that it's misleading and unnecessary to have details about the original plans on the page and I have removed it again. However I have put some information in to explain that the rework was planned before. Thanks, Isobel 22:10, January 13, 2016 (UTC)

As I said, beside it just being a lot of time since the rework was suggested in 2013, it was abandoned and then picked up again more recently. If it had been in development continuously, yes, I would think it possible that they were still using the original ideas. I mentioned Invention because the skill has already been documented to include augmenting gear by adding components to it and I don't see why they would then include a similar concept (fusion) in the Mining and Smithing skills. You are right that these are assumptions, but I think they are pretty logical ones to come to. As for you tweeting Mod Raven: you asked "will much have changed from the original pitches?" and he said "quite likely" (as in "it is quite likely that much has changed"). So that is actually the opposite of what you have taken it to mean? He also said they're "still going through what is achievable" - to me that suggests that they are still planning what the rework will involve, which would not be necessary if they were working from the original plans. I am not happy to add the old information back in based on that; unless there's more definite confirmation that the rework will use these original ideas I would rather wait for future information about the rework. Isobel 17:05, January 14, 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, I just want to keep this page as accurate as possible. Also I think you are right about Rite of Passage,; it's not upcoming just suggested, that it could happen in 2017. Everything else on the page is planned (at least sortof) for this year, but I took ROP out :) Isobel 17:19, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

RE

Yes we do. We literally have entire articles about "old stuff". MolMan 13:43, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be useful if we had some indication that the paws no longer require being equipped for use? Like, some sort of lead sentence... MolMan 13:50, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

The table adds historical information. That's hardly nothing. MolMan 21:14, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

"I just won't rely understand"

I never had that expectation. MolMan 22:58, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Divine Godless allies

I explained it here. It is to avoid certain people from adding Gods into the page from Tuska come. If you read the Talk page Archives page 1. There was an entire argument on the fact of Vorago being allied with the Godless, so the certain person wanted to add the gods because as it looked, he didn't like the fact that Vorago was added on the page, when it was stated within the game's dialogue, that Vorago himself was aligned to the Godless because he also agreed that the gods should not have agenda within Gielinor, he also needed an army to help him give the final blow on Tuska instead of the other Gods. So we added Vorago there as he was aligned to the Godless for they agreed on the same thing and had the same goal at the time. So a Admin added the title to the section to avoid the argument on the talk page to continue, and the person (and other confused Wikia users) from adding Gods.

Once they do have Divine members/Allies, then yes that Non-diety can be removed, but for now it is there to avoid the adding of Tuska comes alliances between the Godless and the 4 factions. I doubt they will ever have members that are gods. As for allies, they would need to have a common belief and a certain goal during that time for the Godless to allow any Gods' aid, (which I also doubt.) Duke Quael ^Talk 19:10, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and the admin is Liquid like I said, I suggest keeping it there until divine creatures are added, until the tiem being, it should remain.   Duke Quael ^Talk 20:47, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

Just keep it like that until the time being man, trust me it's best if we just leave it like that for less trouble. Duke Quael ^Talk 21:29, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

By that I mean just wait and see what happens in the future. Duke Quael ^Talk 23:17, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Koschei/Kharshai

Because Koschei needs like 20 infoboxes and we can't effectively do that if he's on the Kharshai page. Cleaner to have Koschei's history on Kharshai's page, since that actually has a history section, and Koschei's doesn't. Wahisietel (Talk) 12:52, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4, Blood Runs Deep, Dominion Tower Phase 1, Dominion Tower Phase 2, Dominion Tower Phase 3, Dominion Tower Phase 4, Dominion Tower Roof, Rumble Mode. So that's 11, not counting any Koschei NPCs. It's impossible to have information on all the Koscheis on the same page as Kharshai without things becoming extremely messy. Removed the Koschei in combat section from Kharshai's page, since it didn't need to be there. -- Wahisietel (Talk) 20:01, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Oman, maybe like... hold on, I need you paying attention. This split is, like, I dunno, the first phase of making a full informative article on each entity? Man, it's almost like people actually have a decent understanding of what they're doing when they do things. MolMan 22:28, May 7, 2016 (UTC)

No. Judging by your response, you have 0 understanding of what's going on. But that's okay, no one expected anything more from you. MolMan 11:53, May 8, 2016 (UTC)

Damn that rebuttal was savage af MolMan 21:29, May 8, 2016 (UTC)

Citing

Just letting you know that you cite forum posts with {{CiteForum}} (see this edit). Here is a list of all citation templates. --Iiii I I I 18:24, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Red links

Hey Leon, I was looking through Special:WantedPages and I noticed most of the links mentioned there come from User:Leon Art/Fire Rune. Could you please fix/remove/unlink the red links on that page? Thank you!  Salix ^(Talk)  23:46, April 10, 2018 (UTC)

Wikia forking thread

Hey Leon Art! I wanted to give you a heads up that there's a thread (Forum:Leaving Wikia) up for discussion right now about moving this wiki (and OSRS wiki) away from Wikia, to a self-hosted, Jagex-supported site. We'd love your input on the proposal (and the new wikis). Thanks! Isobel 21:38, September 30, 2018 (UTC)