User talk:Robert571

Wikian title

Would you like to be nominated for the Wikian title? :) Isobel 20:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes please. :) Robert571 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Here you go :) Isobel 20:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you want a free wiki t-shirt?

Hi Robert571!

To celebrate the two-year anniversary of the new site, we're giving away RuneScape Wiki t-shirts to a bunch of wiki editors. Because of your contributions to the community over the last year, we'd like to send you one! If you're interested, go fill out this form, and we'll get those shipped out before the end of the month.

If you have any questions, shoot me a talk page message or a DM on Discord (Cook#2222). Thanks!

ʞooɔ 22:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The Wikian title granted

Hi Robert571, your request for the Wikian title was successful. Please contact Gaz Lloyd on his talk page, in the wiki Discord channel, or in-game (RSN: Gaz_Lloyd) so that he may give you the title. Sincerely, ɳex undique 16:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Updating one of your subpages

Hello, I made an update to a section of your User:Robert571/History of combat subpage to comment out a template that was creating several links to a non-existent file (".png"). Please feel free to remove the nowiki tags when you are ready to modify the template to include values. Thanks! Christine 20:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Cumulative Cost For First Aura

Hello, this was removed by me in the past with Gaz's permission for Aura.

It was done to not include cumulative cost there to indicate that this was the first aura (when first aura isn't Tier 1) Lev97 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be there since it allows them to be compared and sorted in tables. Indicating it has/hasn't other tiers could be added in a different parameter.Robert571 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it is required for sorting by tables as Aura accurately includes them by tiers as easy comparison with accurate description wise and a cumulative cost is indicative if there is a previous one for it that is necessary to have purchased to use this one (such as none of the tier 1 auras on the Aura page have a cumulative cost written in the table). It doesn't seem to make sense to have an a cumulative cost for Aegis aura on the table for example when it doesn't require a previous aura to be bought (also there is no subsequent aura associated with it) so it's a standalone aura so it really doesn't make sense to have that term associated with it. I have also included the definition of cumulative, which base auras are not an improvement of a current aura and having it blank on the table is the simplest way to show that this is the first version of an aura.

Definition of cumulative: increasing or increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions. Lev97 (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I know the definition of cumulative. If the cumulative cost isn't set then you can't compare the total cost of the auras in the table.Robert571 (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, going from buying 0 auras to 1 aura is an increase in quantity, your total spendings increase from 0 to whatever. Robert571 (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Well there is another term in the definition: By successive additions. The first aura is the starting point. I think this defintion from Merriam-Webster might be the simplest for cumulative: "formed by the addition of new material of the same kind". I still find it unnecessary to have a cumulative price for one item such as the Tier 1 table in Aura does not include a cumulative price. It's simpler to indicate visually that there is no precursor in the list by having it blank and indicating to look at the individual price to know how much it costs.

In terms of sorting in a table, I don't see why there is any problem sorting in table (Aura has sorted in table by tiers all this time and there had been no problems and the sorting would probably be more beneficial not to include a cumulative cost for base auras as it's not including another cost. All the base auras would be grouped together first so know if you want to get any of the later auras, you must first buy this, look a column left to the individual price to know that price. Auras serve a specific purpose, and people buy them according to the purpose they serve, not to go buying for the cheapest like sorting by POF food costs for example to find the cheapest fish. The table in Aura already seems to do a good job.

So with the use case of auras, providing a visual cue being more beneficial given that Aura sorts well by tiers in a simple to view manner, and this was not done solely by me but with permission from User:Gaz_Lloyd when we were working together on updating the table for loyalty points in a more readable manner (believe that this will ping Gaz so he can provide an input on this issue), I think not including would be best.Lev97 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Robert571/Auras. If the auras are missing cumulative price, you cannot use the table to compare the total cost of a single tier aura to a multiple tier aura. Please stop throwing dictionary definitions at me. I just want to make the table more useable. Robert571 (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed the cumulative price for 2 auras and then looked at your table and it showed sorting fine with blank first to indicate that there is no aura before it. I am confused how you're not able to compare the total cost of a multiple tier aura.Lev97 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Including cumulative price is the logical thing to do for consistency. A mountain has been made out of molehill here.  Gaz Lloyd _7:^]^Events!_99s 20:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have set back the cumulative price for the 2 I have modified for testing purposes. However I still have no clue for what argument he is trying to make that you can't compare the cost of a single tier aura and multiple tier aura and to me it was more consistent with how tier one auras on Aura not including a cumulative price because it didn't accumulate from anything previous.

I intended mine to when you look at the Aura page, for example if you select Tier 3 and you see if there is no cumulative price, then you can visually see easily that you don't require an aura from tier 2. And if sort by cumulative price, then will show that it's an independent auras starting at tier 3. However, his argument is not based on stance if aura is independent/dependent on a previous aura (well I'm not really sure on what he is arguing for as the only thing he mentions is that it can be "sorted and compared in tables" as it was always sorted and compared in the tables without issue).

I'll drop it but I still find the more logical thing for consistency with the Aura page for tier 1 and I have stated the added benefit for mine, however it'd be helpful to see his added benefit (or what issue he has had with sorting).Lev97 (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

We want to give you some wiki merch!

Hey Robert571,

As thanks for your contributions to the wiki and its community over the last year, we'd like to send you a t-shirt, scarf, and some other fun wiki merch! If you're interested, fill out this form and we'll get some stuff shipped to you soon! You can also see more info about the merch at RSW:RuneScape:Winter 2024 Merch.

If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a talk page message or ping me on Discord at @bigdiesel. Thanks!

BigDiesel2m (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

RE: Module:Weakness clickpic/data

Didn't realize we were using the perk image for some generic status. We actually should just be more granular as there are cases where assumptions cannnot be made. For example, demon slayer inv perk and darklight are both effective at kalgerion demons, but at Kril, demon slayer perk works, but not darklight. Really we need an overhaul IMO. It's neither clear to a reader for susceptibility to things like salve amulet, darklight, etc, nor to someone editing a template where certain susceptibilities are just added in based on unintuitive logic.  Bren (talk | contribs) 19:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Alt1

Thanks for figuring out what was happening with Alt1's wiki plugin at Talk:Caelyn Kadaan 9. Winter Armor (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote in the 2024 Weird Gloop elections!

Hi Robert571,

Because of your involvement with the wiki, you are eligible to vote on the candidates for the board of Weird Gloop, the company that hosts the RuneScape Wikis.

See meta:Weird Gloop elections for general information about the process, and meta:Weird Gloop elections/2024/Candidates for candidate presentations and community questions.

There are 3 candidates for RSW, 4 candidates for OSRSW, and 1 candidate for pt-RSW. If you'd like to influence who represents the voices of these communities inside the company, please consider voting in this election. You are one of only 242 people that meet the requirements, and this is your opportunity to help shape the future of the wikis.

Thanks! BigDiesel2m (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Editor feedback

Hi. I’m looking into peoples’ experiences of editing the wiki and being a part of the community here. I'm reaching out to you as you are one of the more seasoned editors who has been active recently. I wondered if you'd like to take a short survey about your experiences to help out with this project? If you’re interested you can take the survey here. You can also reach me on our Discord if you’d like to talk to me directly about anything - my username is isobelj :) Isobel 19:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Vote in the 2025 RuneScape Wiki Board elections!

Hi Robert571!

Because of your involvement with the wiki, you are eligible to vote on the candidates for the RuneScape Wiki board!

See meta:RuneScape Wiki elections for general information about the process, and meta:RuneScape Wiki elections/2025/Candidates for candidate presentations and community questions.

There are 3 candidates for RSW, 4 candidates for OSRSW, and 1 candidate for pt-RSW. If you'd like to influence who represents the voices of these communities inside the company, please consider voting in this election. You are one of only 324 people that meet the requirements, and this is your opportunity to help shape the future of the wikis.

Thanks! BigDiesel2m (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)