RuneScape:Yew Grove/Archive2

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 "...that anyone can edit' 2 Warning Vandals 3 Remove "street prices" 4 Crackdown on certain policies 5 Glitch articles & images 6 Getting rid of CVU 7 YouTube embedding policy 8 Vandalism 9 Recent changes refreshes automatically 10 Special:Userrights 11 editing help anoying! 12 Other languages 13 A Message from Total Rune 14 Comma, " ", or Nothing? 15 Explicitating who may participate in RfAs, AotMs, VfDs and the like

[edit] "...that anyone can edit'

Well, anyone can edit this wikia. But i see more and more wrong edits from IP addresses.

Like the Dragon chainbody was last set on 198K?

HAM boots, best boots in the game with stats 90+?

And many more, I think that people first have to make an account, read rules *then continue* and then they may edit.

And after 50 edits they may place images

What do you think of this?

1. Read rules
   1. Continue
   2. Accept rules
2. Edit
3. Placing images after 50 edits made

Buzz 9 1990 ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 10:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The suggestion here violates two very important policies; RS:AEAE and RS:AGF. Basically, all editors are equal, and that whenever someone edits, assume it's to help the wiki, not hurt it. Now, if they do things like that above, what to do first is assume good faith. Maybe they didn't know. Just put a nice little note on the talk page. However, if it continues and the user just won't listen to you and acts obnoxiously, then that might be considered vandalism, but, otherwise, no. This idea can't happen because it violates these policies, and they are very fundamental for the RuneScape Wiki. Butterman62 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - we have to assume good faith, and it's impossible to set those restrictions anyways. Some IPs DO have great edits. Christine 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Remember, not ALL IP's are bad. Infact, most of them edit in good faith, some of them make silly edits, and some are vandals. But to block an entire usergroup would be like putting one's entire family in jail for what they did (I understand that this has happened and is happening in the world). Just let IPs edit and if they're vandalizing, revert it and block them. If their edits are silly, I see no reason why you can't just click "revert" or "undo". Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - I've done about fifty edits throughout the various IPs that I have used, reverting vandalism, improving articles and notably being the one responsible for breaking all the codes in the Chaos Elemental's corkboard. If you did ban all IPs, my contributions would have never happened. And I am only one person. Imagine my contributions and multiply them by the number of good people using IPs; all of them gone. You will get a reduced incidence of vandalism but you will also make this wiki so much the poorer and inaccurate.--72.1.222.146 11:47, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

• Comment - He's not asking to ban IPs, he's asking to make it so you have ot have 50 edits (in the mainspace?) to upload an image. Ilyas Talk Contribs 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He said: "I think that people first have to make an account, read rules *then continue* and then they may edit." and later said after 50 edits, upload pictures. So he is in fact advocating a complete ban on IP edits. You can also see in his step by step instructions that he wants people to create accounts before they can make a single edit.

• Comment Talk about missing the forest for the trees. I just realized: what is this discussion doing here on the talk page for requests for administration? Shouldn't it be in the Yew grove?--72.1.222.146 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - This whole process is something that... if it were to be changed... is something that should be taken up with Wikia instead. This is an interesting trade-off in terms of making things difficult for the new contributor before you can make your first edit. In some ways, I like the idea of adding some initial obsticles for new users (aka something like tutorial island on Runescape) so you don't have a whole bunch of throw-away accounts... or at least something that you've invested a little bit of time into first. Quality does improve significantly when you do this, but at the expense of driving a great many more people away from editing and adding content. Experience on Wikipedia and other wiki projects show that by opening up the editing tools (including image uploads) for anybody and everybody, that it provides an excellent path for brand new contributors to get involved. Where to draw that line is sometimes difficult between removing problematic users and allowing a low threshold for new contributors to start out. By their very nature, a wiki tends to err on the side of allowing new users full access to editing tools. I agree that this needs to continue. --Robert Horning 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - This would completely defeat the purpose of a wiki, the point being: Anyone can contribute to the ongoing project. Disallowing the right for anyone to edit could have severe consequences for this wiki. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I only "officially" joined after I had already made several small edits as an anonymous IP. By disallowing IP's to edit, you'd not only remove that (large) part of the population, but it would also discourage many people from even signing up to begin with. I understand that many vandals come from anonymous IPs, but that's not to say all anonymous IPs vandalize. The point is to assume good faith. - Regabuh 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Very Strongly Oppose - That ruins the whole purpose of a wiki. I see more good IP edits than vandalism. Anyway, we're always advertising, "The wiki for all things RuneScape that anyone can edit!" C Teng ^talk 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is just wrong, YES anyone can edit this wikia. They can do what ever they want. But if they make an account, read rules and stuff, THEN they may edit, so, everyone can still edit, but with a little change..

Or better, read rules before anyones first edit! That means this has nothing to do with IP banning..

Buzz 9 1990 ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So people who use dynamic IPs like AOL will have to read the rules every single time they want to make a small edit? Or do you want even static IPs since libraries, colleges, universities community centers, appartments, etc... can all have multiple people using the same IP address? Here's an interesting poll that could be put on the front page "How many edits did you make before officially joining the RuneScape wiki"? How many people do you think will vote 0? Now how many people do you think will vote for a number or go "I still haven't joined!" How many improvements to the wiki do you think will go by because casual visitors who notice a mistake or an omission or even account members who are visiting from a foreign computer and don't want/can't log in to their account? Your idea not only destroys the spirit of this wiki but will actually hurt the quality of the wiki because it will cause a severe reduction in valuable and timely edits.--72.1.222.146 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright... I think we've reached a consensus. C Teng ^talk 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No no, they don't have to read the rules before every edit, they can click on a little box to accept the rules, then they may edit. Just, read the rules, accept them, and edit. That is now my main thing. Less vandalism. (The price of an ancient staff was set on 8120000gp, by an IP address.

Click here

here here here here here Buzz 9 1990 ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 07:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't go back and edit your original post Buzz. It's against the rules and it makes it very difficult for people who join a discussion late to understand what the heck is going on. If you want to change your opinion halfway through a discussion, then state your new opinion at an appropriate place (resigning with the new opinion) and strikethrough the old stuff.

Sorry bout that!

Anyway, I still oppose this. Anything that retracts from peoples' ability to edit is unWiki. I don't even think forcing people to read the rules would make a difference; 95% of vandals know they're breaking the rules when they break the rules, even if they haven't read them yet. Endasil (Talk) @  08:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

↓ People that want to edit this wiki MUST know what they are doing ↓

“

It is a good idea that users register an account, preferably their RuneScape username. This way their IP address can be hidden from public view and they can become part of the community. It is recommended that your RuneScape password is not used as your Wikia password.

”

People that stay under IP addresses have more chance to be a vandal.. I just want them to read the Rules once, clicking on a box. Then continue! Like when you upload an image, all those warnings! They have to be more clear!

Buzz 9 1990 ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 14:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As has just been mentionned, do you really think it's a lack of understanding the rules that makes someone replace an article with "POOP"? And again, you say you "just want them to read the rules once" and so once again I ask, what about the people who are on a dynamic IP like AOL, are they going to have to read the rules everytime they make an edit and what about all those places where several people use just one IP? Oh, by the way, there is nothing forcing new members to read the rules either so you would be asking the IPs to set a higher standard than those who did join.--Diberville 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the ability to just dive in and start editing is a good thing. Vandalism is a nuisance, but we stay on top of it pretty well and I don't think we should penalise good editors who choose not to create an account. The same goes for image uploads. Unless the amount of vandalism increases by an order of magnitude I see no reason to change the current system. Pointy 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Oke, let's put an end of this, people may dive in and edit, the vandalism is the admins and our care. Buzz 9 1990 ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 06:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning Vandals

Okay, so the point I'm bringing up is warning (a set number of times) vandals before blocking. All editors are equal and should be teated equally; however, there are both pros and cons with this proposal. But rather than bring those points up, I want to make a compromise. We could try first time blocks for the convenience of admins, with warnings simultaneously. If the vandalism occurs even after both have taken effect, another block should take place with an extended amount of time. There needs to be consistency in blocking as well as more effective methods. Or, perhaps a user could think of a rating system for how long a block should last and what type of message they should receive.

e.g. the number represents severity out of a score of 10. If they exceed a specific number (probably 10), a block will take place. Less will result in a warning. Though, these ratings are my own and hypothetical.

• Blanking pages. (8)
• Posting offensive material, whether it be images or words. (5)
• Contributing nonsense. (6)
• A language other than English is added. (6)
• False or deceptive information is being added to an article. (4)
• Personal attacks on a user. (8-9)
• Content which encourages breaking the 15 game rules. (8)
• Advertising in any form (aside from websites listed under "External Links" which relate to the article that it is being put in) (7)
• Articles about players. (6)
• Impersonating another user. (7)
• Creating pages and adding random nonsense to them. (5)

As you can see, pretty much anything more than 2 offences will result in a ban. I need commentary and am leaning toward admins and bureaucrats as this apllies to them. Maybe the amount of points over 10 represents the number of days the block will stay. That could work, but more suggestions and fine-tuning is necessary. AriasKnight 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think any obvious vandalism deserves an instant block. Inserting swears, offensive words or images, putting crap and spam into pages, etc. Blanking a page only if it's more than one, it's possible that just one was an accident. Articles about players I don't think deserve a block unless it's repeatedly created or it's insulting or breaks anything I listed prior. That's all I really feel like typing out now, maybe I'll respond to other points later once more people chime in. Christine^Talk_Flickr 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Christine. I also instant block removing a lot of content and replacing it with 'OWNED' or whatever. Also obvious false info such as 1 gp for rune gear or 1,000,000,000 gp for a bucket in an Exchange page get instant blocking. These vandals know what they are doing is not right and deserve instant blocking. Most anons and users do a good job editing and help improve the wikia. Chrislee33 05:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins must still be able to exercise personal discretion first and foremost - anything else should be for guidance only. I'd support a policy giving general advice for ban lengths, but I think a formal 'scoring card' will add a lot of complications to the process. In some cases it could even prevent admins from banning someone who is deliberately vandalising but is keeping it just below whatever threshold is set for a permanent ban. Pointy 11:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how this policy would only apply to admins and bureaucrats, it's up to you guys to decide what you feel will be the most effective way to deal with vandalism. If instant blocking is the most effective way to deal with it, then shouldn't the banned template lead them to our code of conduct? It's simple and not too hard. At this point there are quite a few admins who block first-time offenders but I think as long as some standard policy - just about anything that works and is official would satisfy me. Come to think of it, does anyone here have the programming skills to create a vandal fighting bot? If anybody has seen Cluebot's work in action, it's pretty useful. AriasKnight 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

take a hydrogen bomb, multiply its effectiveness by 27, and you have cluebot. Earth_talk

I remember reading something about Cluebot working on a point system that looks for certain words and expressions in the page text. I'm almost sure the algorithm is published somewhere, so it would be relatively easy to duplicate. However, a few modifications could be made, as vulgar language will never be in a legitimate article here, while on WP that isn't the case. Skill 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. Source code is posted on that page too. Skill 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

vandalism to item prices can be difficult to detect. any chance our "ClueBot" will be able to detect that vandalism (assuming it's created)? Earth_talk

Perhaps if too many digits are listed, the bot would put a botted message on the CVU? That would locate something like someone putting "10000000000000" or so as an item's price on an "Exchange:" page. Chiafriend12 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there could be a notification somewhere (CVU is great) if the price is outside the 5% a day range normally allowed by the GE, and maybe an automatic revert if the price is over, say, 10 million, with exceptions for items that are truly worth this much. Other edits that look suspicious but are not definitely vandalism could be reported there too, for that matter. Skill 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh Earthere, from that statement, is a hydrogen bomb an effective solution? I feel that I missed the implication. :| AriasKnight 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A Hydrogen Bomb is an effective solution. The question is, to what problem? I think Earthere was praising the bot, either way. As for my feelings on this subject, I don't disagree on any particular point, I'm more just not big on institutionalizing our ability to give out blocks. My gut says that if we create a point-based system, nobody will pay attention to it anyway. I don't really see the need for such a point system...is there some pandemic of unfair blocking going on? I've always thought that our judgement has been pretty good at discerning when we should assume good faith or when someone was obviously out to hurt the wiki. Remember, breaking the rules is always either accidental or intentional, and in my experience, about 90% of the time, it's obvious whether or not the vandal was intentional in whatever they did. Endasil (Talk) @ 00:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "street prices"

Notable proposal can be found here. Thanks, Earth_talk

[edit] Crackdown on certain policies

I posted this in the forums, but NO ONE'S given me a single suggestion, so I'm placing it here. I want answers. Now. Before I go insane.

"I have been asked no fewer than SEVEN times by (mostly) noobs as to why their "images and pages" were deleted. All of these files, regardless of type, were deleted because:

• In the case of an image, it was personal, or...
• In the case of an article, it was worthless trash.

Yet people keep asking me as to why their things are being deleted. It's severely annoying, and I want to put an abrupt end to it. ALL OF IT. If I have one more person that asks me a question like that, I will start handing out blocks for ASKING the damn'd question.

Thus, I am proposing a stricter policy to our article creation, especially image uploading. I suggest that, when a new user registers, they must READ the rules, one-by-one (so they don't feel tempted to skip the whole thing), before being able to complete registration. I also believe we should revise RS:Granularity to include everything that doesn't have an impact on RS. (Currently, I see only non-interactive scenery as part of this policy; Chiafriend made a non-RS related article "Tracy West"; I believe that sort of thing should be included)

Image uploads are beginning to be a problem. I have just recently deleted a user's PERSONAL images. The problem is that people OBVIOUSLY "haven't heard of ImageShack or PhotoBucket" [/sarcasm]. Well, of COURSE they've heard of it! But isn't it much easier (and lazier) to just make it a wiki image? Thus, I believe we need to crack down on it big-time."

OK, now as for such changes...

First off, the rules-before-registration. Is it possible to change the registration process so that a potential user must read the rules one-by-one (so they don't whizz by them and not care) before entering their account data? If so, I suggest we do that. We'll possibly get a lot less new users uploading their personal images. In fact, it might slice down the vandlism more than I'm currently foreseeing.

Another thing I suggested in that forum post is the RS:Granularity policy be revised so that it SPECIFICALLY states what is article-worthy and what is not. I see many not-worthy articles being written anyway, from "Tracy West" to "Winch". We don't really have to do a crackdown on violaters; such articles are few and far between. That reminds me: the current RS:Granularity policy only has ONE ARTICLE in its list. That's it: ONE. We need to update that crap more...

Which brings me to the last problem: Image uploads. They. Are. Misunderstood. We NEED to crack down on that more! I'm seeing too many instances where I they upload images that I delete, only for me to get a torrent of crap on my talk page about "OMFG Y U DLETE MAH ST00F!!!1 I WAZ UZING IT 4 MAH UZER PAJE!!1"...Pathetic. I'm NOT going to tolerate people asking me why I've deleted their stuff. If I have to change my way of doing things, like telling them EVERY time for EVERY personal image that EVERY noob uploads, fine. But until we get somewhere with this, I won't be reminding anyone anymore to not do such crappy things. --Stinkowing_{(I'm hungry.)}

Awesome idea, I hate seeing some personal or crappy page on the namespace.  C Teng ^talk 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude you did that like 5 times with your image... Christine^Talk_Flickr 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if he did, after you learn how to do it properly, watching someone else do it wrong can piss you off, and don't tell me that isn't the case. Puremexican

, 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (i did it too now it pisses me off :P)

Noobs will never read the rules and so proposing such a change will create almost no difference from what it was initially. paracropolis^TALK 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with personal images. The kind of articles you were mentioning, I understand why. Though for images, I see only one reason why not to allow them. What reason? "It uses up server space.". There is no limit to server space. "Using up server space" uses up an unlimited resource. I don't really see a problem with that. I do understand why non-RuneScape images would be deleted. Being off topic, and all. But for personal images, like an image of your character, an image of you getting a certain level, they are on the topic of the wiki: RuneScape.

Tracy West has the same connection to RuneScape that Jagex does. Jagex wrote the code to RuneScape. Tracy wrote the official book. If "Tracy West" is a "non-RS related article", the "Jagex" is too. Chiafriend12 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving past how bad of an analogy that was, and how fallacious an argument it was that you just made, there is more than one reason not to allow personal images. This site aims to be a professional, wikified alternative to guide sites such as runehq and tip.it. It is not a forum, and it is not a fan sandbox. Everything that gets added to the Image repository belongs to this wiki and we're therefore putting our brand on it. What does it look like when somebody puts some non-relevant, silly image on the site, and the admins don't delete it? It reflects on the character of the site itself. Furthermore, everything has a limit, especially server space. Just because there may not be a published limit, that doesn't mean Wikia couldn't shut us down for not being responsible with the free space they give us. We owe it to them to be good stewards of the resources they give us. Endasil (Talk) @ 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are plenty of free alternative image hosting sites available - if someone isn't able take the time and effort to upload the image and refer to that url from here, what's the chance that they'll bother adding the meta-information we want for images here, like categories, copyright usage, transparency and using correct file formats? The "proper" images we have already need a lot of work to clean up, let alone adding to the problem with hundreds of user images. Pointy 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is to add "color" to a user's personal page, and if some additional image ought to be allowed or not. I've run into edit wars with admins over allowing any image that is not directly copied or somehow extracted from the Jagex webpages... which IMHO is perhaps going a little over the top. I tried to add an image of the New York Stock Exchange to the GEMW page stictly for some atmosphere, and it was not only deleted, but the deletion reverted and then deleted again. Most other wikis, noting in particular even Wikipedia, have allowed images a more personal nature on their user pages without getting hyper paranoid about suitability. This isn't to say that a whole gallery of images ought to be permitted, but I fail to see the harm in allowing some sort of personal image as long as it is tasteful (aka not pornographic) and kept at very low numbers, like at most one or two... and used on user pages. Allowing this isn't going to kill wikia and overload the servers... nor do I see Wikia complaining here to eliminate this sort of incidental image uploading. Wikipedia's main issue is copyright status... which is something that should be of concern here as well even as most of the images are copyrighted by Jagex and go way beyond even United States fair use legal concepts. If we were really paranoid about copyright issues, 99.99% of all of the images currently on this project would have to be deleted.--Robert Horning 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's against allowing people to put (appropriate) personal images on their user pages. The issue is more about where those images are stored - whether it's on the wiki or whether we ask people to host them elsewhere and then link to them. The concern I have is with having to wade through large numbers of personal images to try and work with the 'legitimate' images - things like adding transparency, categorising images, finding unused files and so on will all be made harder by having to work around large numbers of personal images that would clutter up the wiki. Pointy 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem with storing a "limited number" of personal images like this? To "sort" through the images, all that would really be needed is some sort of tag or category to label the image for "personal use" or something that is used on a user page. While whole galleries should be prohibited, a modest number certainly could be used and uploaded to the wiki itself... copyright issues notwithstanding. It does get into copyright issues, which is something this project should be worried about anyway. Most of the images on this website can claim fair-use authority due to the fact that it is derived from screen shots of the game itself. My question would then be raised here.... in your opinion what would be some examples of acceptable images that aren't copyrighted by Jagex? --Robert Horning 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that users should read the rules. However, just asking once why their image was deleted doesn't warrant an instant block. If they're being rude, like doing that "OMFG Y U DLETE MAH ST00F!!!1 I WAZ UZING IT 4 MAH UZER PAJE!!1" thing you mentioned above, then yes, that should get a block, and if asked repeatedly, then yes it should, but not just for asking once. That might be considered abuse of admin power. Butterman62 (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Starting new indent) I agree with having users read the rules (if possible). However, I dont' quite understand your argument. You want us to make it so users can be blocked for asking why their images were deleted? If that's what you're asking, then no, they shouldn't, unless they repeat it to the level where it becomes spam. Or are you asking for us to make policies more strict so users can't even create articles or upload images that aren't DIRECTLY related (like Chia said about the article he created)? In that case, I wouldn't agree. We already have a policy about having fakes/personal images (whether IRL or just ingame images of you pwning your friends). It doesn't need to be any stricter than that, although I agree that someone uploading an image of their uncle, who works for Jagex and isn't really that noteable (they have hundreds of employees) would be wrong. Still, I don't see what you want done... There isn't much to be done. Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I haven't been too active in a while, but here's my slant on it all. I don't think that it would be conceivable to think that even attempting to force people to read the rules would result in them actually reading them. I don't feel like going through all the rules and agreements that every single website makes you check when you join them. I also think that it wouldn't be possible to force them to do so. Also, blocking them for not understanding the rules isn't really a good reason either, just be patient and show them the right way to do things. If you're not willing to be helpful, especially as a Sysop, maybe you shouldn't be one. At the same time, I think that since images are really the issue, if it's possible to prevent anyone from uploading images except those who have either had an acocunt for a certain amount of time, or people that hte sysops have "unlocked" the privilege for, that would be a better situation. I don't know if that would be possible, but it would be a suggestion. The issue in the past was that suddenly we weren't allowed to have personal images (RuneScape related even, characters, etc), when before we could. A replacement solution was given, we can use free image servers, like imageshack, photobucket, etc. So that problem has been solved. NO images uploaded on the wiki servers that are not RS related and used in an article. All other images on the site need to be loaded through an outside source (Photobucket, etc). We are not opposed to having those other images (although they need to only be on a personal page, and within our image guidelines, no porn, etc.). If it's possible to let sysops determine who is able to upload images (maybe with the exception of those personal images, since they aren't uploaded anyways), I think that would be an ideal solution. ^TIRRIAN_GANT ^(TALK) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glitch articles & images

Ok, these are really bugging me. RuneScape is not WoW. We all know that. We don't need the reasons why, however we need to focus on graphics. We know RuneScape does not have great graphics. The sane players ignore it, and accept that nearly every item or piece of scenery will have issues once in a while. But what everyone needs to realize, is that these aren't "glitches." They're graphical issues. So some of these bs "glitch" articles are just graphic abnormalities. Someone standing in a wall? Yeah, you can do that nearly anywhere. We are not going to document every one of those. Someone wearing a bedsheet at Pest Control? Yeah, that's a glitch, because it was only supposed to be possible to wear it in Port Phasmatys. Carpet rides in Draynor, glitch. Something that "caused players to lean in an unusual way"? No. Honestly, what is the point of that? Does that even interest you in the least? I think we need to get rid of all graphical "glitch" articles and images. Christine 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Christine for same reason. --Stinkowing_{(I'm hungry.)}

I don't have any real position on this. I kind of like the idea of including these things just as "sidebar" articles, as in, special/common interest things. They make me laugh. Sure they're to be expected with new updates, but what's the harm in keeping them around? I would understand perhaps getting rid of ones that have been fixed and were also not notable (such as the leaning glitch), but for ones that are still active, I say why not include them? Maybe someone will have fun with it. The other day I was woodcutting for the first time in a few years, and a guy went up to a tree, did the cut emote and immediately cut down the tree (the axe animation didn't take place). The tree looked like it fell down as a result of the guy clapping, and I thought it was funny. Maybe if you posted a few more examples of ones you thought should be deleted, I could form a better opinion...Endasil (Talk) @ 16:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Accually, a glitch causing players to lean in an unusual way does sort of interest me. I don't see anything wrong with those glitches, as long as they are glitches, they should stay in the article. C Teng 17:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Christine is right. Although they can be considered "glitches" , since they are faults in the game graphics, although that depends on how you define "glitch", there are too many to document and they aren't really of much interest. Perhaps we shouldn't delete them, but just merge them into the article they belong in? I mean they are worth some notice, but not an entire page of their own. Maybe a sentence or two in the appropriate article. Ilyas Talk Contribs 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Causing players to lean in an unusual way is merged with Glitch.  C Teng ^talk 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should merge everything from Category:Glitches and errors into the Glitch article, with the exception of the World 111 and Party hat duplication glitches. Seriously, look at this. Christine 00:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that should be merged, at least.  C Teng ^talk 00:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean if there was a certain item that had a graphic error in it (like the Dragon Kite) then we shouln'd mention it in the glitches article but rather in the Dragon Kite article (just an example). Ilyas Talk Contribs 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't have glitch articles. But one image of important glitches is good. And I think Ilyas has a point. We should mention npc, item, etc. related glitches on its page. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 07:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But why? What's wrong with glitch articles? The minor ones should be in the Glitches page, but some are long enough to deserve their own articles. C Teng ^talk 15:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting rid of CVU

The CVU page is a great page with great intentions, but is it really needed? Tell me, if a user wants to revert vandalism, can they not just do it themselves? Perhaps we can create a page to tell users what to do in case of vandalism, or just turn the CVU page into that, and they can just tell a sysop on their talk page so that the vandal can be blocked. I'm not against the CVU, and it's a good page, but it's not entirely necessary. What are talk pages for? Perhaps instead of reporting vandalism on CVU, there'll be a page giving the names of sysops (similar to CVU) and telling users what to do when they spot vandalism. Having a whole page where people can report vandalism is kind of useless, seing as they can... 1-Revert it themselves and 2-Ask a sysop on their talk page or on RS to block the vandal. They can even leave a message on the vandal's talk page asking them to stop! I'm not entirely against the Counter Vandalism Unit, and if we decided to keep it that would be ok, but I'm just asking the community to see what they think. It would also encourage users to take action and deal with vandalism by themselves. If that happened, the amount of vandalism we get might decrease and more regular users would be trained to deal with vandalism. We wouldn't need sysops reverting/blocking IPs every hour. Again, CVU is a great page and it's worked towards helping stop vandalism for over a year and a half now, but letting users take action into their own hands and leave a message on a sysop's talk page would also be a great alternative. Please discuss Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The CVU isn't a place for sysops to find vandalism they have to revert, it's a place for users to list what vandals have to be blocked. The users, 99% of the time, DO revert the vandalism. Every sysop should, and probably do, check the CVU when they log in to see what vandals haven't been dealt with, that way the users don't have to worry about finding an ACTIVE admin, someone who is actually on at that time. The CVU tells us who to block in the case that an admin isn't around, because normal users can't block, and vandals have to be punished. Also, I don't see how posting on the CVU isn't "taking action into their own hands." It's no different than posting on a sysop's talk page. Christine 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Posting on a sysop's talk page does exactly the same thing, except why have a page if it isn't really needed. I think when Shadowdancer created it it was more needed than it is now. I suppose you're right and it's better for everyone to see what's happened rather than posting a message on one sysop's talk page, but I have seen instances where people have posted something on CVU and not reverted it themselves, but maybe that's just my experience, since I don't even check the CVU (but it is on my watchlist). Ilyas Talk Contribs 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is more needed now than it was when Shadowdancer created it due to more vandals, more edits in the recent changes, and more admins that are active (and inactive). It is harder to see the vandalism in the recent changes because they move more quickly than they did then. Dtm142 20:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, it does the same thing, yet this is more likely to get noticed than some message on a sysop's page that isn't necessarily on at the time. I say it stays. Christine 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you post on a sysop's talk page, 1 person notices. If you post it on the CVU, ALL the sysops notice. For example, when I'm looking at the recent changes, if I see that someone edited Ilyas's talk page, I'd probably ignore it. However, if someone edited the CVU, I'd definitely check it out. Tes^Fan 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Darn edit conflict... Anyways, I was going to say : "It seems I've been pursuaded. I do still think we should put something on how to revert vandalism for new users." Ilyas Talk Contribs 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

.....Help:Revert#Undo. Christine 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(New indent) But a new user may not know that... All I'm saying is to add a link or something that encourages new users to revert vandalism. All efforts should be made to help stop vandalism, even if it's by .01 of a percent. Ilyas Talk Contribs22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I link to the Help:Editing page in my welcome. I assume the generic welcome template does the same (it really should if it doesn't). Christine 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides if someone leaves a message on christines page and for some odd reason she isn't there, the vandal won't be noticed until someone else gets to them. Keep the CVU. Besides its a good place for future candidate sysops to get noticed.Puremexican

, 23:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that since users are encouraged to revert vandalism on their own anyway, the CVU should have it's focus changed from a page to report vandalism to a page requesting admins to block vandals, similar to the page Wikipedia has. Lexmarkman^talk  23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I mean why report it if that's all you're going to do, even though, according to Christine, 99% of users revert the vandalism they report (which they probably do, but I haven't seen that happen sometimes. Still, that's my experience, not everyone else's). Ilyas Talk Contribs 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I say we keep the cvu. But maybe just have a link to the reverting vandalism page and have instructions to revert the vandalism first. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 06:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep and add section or link on how to revert. Chrislee33 07:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As a normal user I usually revert the vandalism then I like to report the vandal IP on the CVU. I don't want to put it on someones talk page cuz what if they are not going to be around for a while? Keep the CVU so us regular joes have a place to list the baddies.--Degenret01 08:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to know what another average user does, when I see vandalism, I undo it immediately and move on to something else. I'll only post in the CVU if the vandal created a page in which case I can't "undo" anything and so I give the admins a heads up to delete the page. To get back to the original discussion, if the purpose of CVU is simply to revert vandalism, then its presence is somewhat limited since the only extra speciality that it has is the ability to warn those capable of deleteing of newly created vandalized pages; if someone is put on the CVU page for regular vandalism, it can be assumed that the person who put the vandal there already dealt with the vandalism. If however, the CVU has a secondary purpose of not only reverting vandalism but banning the vandals, then you have the problem of a overwhelming majority of people who revert vandals not reporting on the CVU page those vandals. I patrol the recent changes page and I constantly see reverts but I rarely see the CVU page showing up. Too bad there isn't a "Recent reverts page".--Diberville 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that perspective Diberville. I think we would agree at this point that the primary purpose of the CVU is for administrators to deal with vandal accounts. I've updated the system message that appears as you try to "undo" an edit to request that the undoer also report the vandal at RS:CVU. Hopefully this will help users understand that we would appreciate not only their help in reverting vandalism, but also in dealing with vandals. Endasil (Talk) @  04:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube embedding policy

Currently, we have no policy on YouTube videos being embedded in articles. Some users remove them anyway, with nothing currently to stand on. I recommend that we make some policy on embedding YouTube videos. I say that the video must portray no opinions (like how a review is very opinionated), and be informational, and stuff like that.

I have footage of a weird version of the death glitch myself, but HyperCam nor Windows Movie Maker lets you export clips as .gifs, only .wavs (I think they're .wavs.).

As a note, if something gets passed saying that videos aren't allowed in articles, many cases would still fall under RS:IAR. Chiafriend12 00:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really enjoy YouTube videos within articles since there are technical issues that may crop up, copyright problems can arise and aesthetically, it doesn't look very nice. However, I personally think that they can and should be included if they convey some information which for one reason or another can not be conveyed through a simple textual or pictoral display, the creator of the video has given their express permission of its use, and the video itself avoids using loud music, swearing, biased opinion and respects all other current rules within policy; in short, the video must be encyclopedic.--Diberville 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with not letting youtube vids into main articles. There are so many issues (mentioned above) that can easily arise. Cheers! Atlandy 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think YouTube articles should be kept. Most are very useful. Also, if the creator has to give licenses, then I don't think many would be allowed on this wiki, anyway. I say we just keep it like it is.  C Teng ^talk 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on there. No matter our opinions on the validity of YouTube videos in articles, wiki policy dictate that we can not use someone else's own intellectual property, be it a map, an image, text or anything else, without their express permission.--Diberville 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I never saw any. I assumed that they wouldn't mind unless they directly said, "Do not use this!"  C Teng ^talk 20:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if you check below the edit window, it says in bold lettering "Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!" Here's our policy and it links to the umbrella Wikia policy which in a nutshell means that you have to assume you can't freely take and use someone's intellectual property unless there's something that expressly says you can.--Diberville 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RuneScape videos, as all the images and animations on this wiki, are copyright of Jagex, not the video maker/image taker/animation taker, and of which qualify under Fair Use, so that isn't a problem. Chiafriend12 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the right of a YouTuber to make a RuneScape video without Jagex's permission versus the right of this wiki to use that video without the creator's permission. The former is allowable, the latter, which is what we are discussing, is not.--Diberville 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify the "fair use" argument about Jagex's intellectual property. Based on quite a bit of legal precedence and statutory law, what happens on this wiki is largely a derivative product, not really in the spirit of fair-use. What this means is that the content comes from Jagex copyrighted material and draws largely from that. We use so much Jagex material that claiming a "fair use" exception is really more of a joke than anything else, and IMHO not a valid legal excuse.

There is a defacto agreement to allow us to use Jagex content... as I have a very hard time believing that Jagex has never heard of the Runescape Wiki and hasn't had lawyers come and check us out. That none of us are making money off of this website (Wikia is, but not us, the contributors) certainly makes it quite a bit harder to prosecute the "authors" of this website. There is also a statute of limitations, both within the USA (where this website is hosted) and in the UK (home of Jagex) that requires the person whose copyright is being violated to step up and claim copyright violation.... usually (in the USA) with a DCMA "cease and desist" letter. That Jagex isn't being more forceful about the copyright is due to the benevolence of Jagex and their property, not due to some very liberal interpretation of fair use (or "fair dealing in Europe") copyright doctrine.

In other words, we exist because Jagex thinks having a bunch of fan sites that do screen captures and reproduce content from their web servers can help their bottom line, and that we act as a sort of advertisement branch for the company... or at least "free publicity" under theories of good public relations. All that it would take to shut down this wiki is some idiot of a new CEO/lead lawyer to get their "panties in a bunch" and decide to file that cease and desist request with Wikia.

BTW, this has happened when Paramount Studios went on a rampage and did just that against a whole bunch of Star Trek fan websites.

I highly doubt that including some "YouTube" videos is going to change that status... as long as the "authors" of those videos have either given explicit GFDL (or GFDL-compatible) copyleft licensing terms or are "officially" released by Jagex (as we are running ragged over Jagex copyright anyway, a little bit more doesn't make a difference). I do agree with Diberville that it should be something encyclopedic in nature, and demonstrating something like one of the riots or some other feature in a fashion similar to how we are using animated GIFs right now. All YouTube would be in this case is a free content hosting service, and helping to "offload" some of the data storage requirements from Wikia... who could also be "hosting" the video data as well all things considered.

The real argument is if we should allow external (to Wikia) content storage at places like YouTube, or should all of the content be hosted "locally" on Wikia servers. On that point, I really don't know what the best answer is. Certainly it would be useful to know if Wikia is hesitant about having a huge video archive or not... due to data storage requirements. --Robert Horning 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I will step away from the legal and fair use issues that Robert has already addressed and comment simply on the aesthetics. And on 99 percent of the RS vids I have seen, they really really suck. I feel they lower the overall quality of any page they are on, and therefore lower the overall quality of the wiki. We (i.e. all good contributors combined) put in hundreds of hours a week overall to make this site not only as informative as possible, but to do it in a neat concise way. The vids do not add to the neatness. Now, to be fair to the claim that some of them are informative and helpful, maybe the videos can be put on an article subpage linked to from that particular article. So each user can decide on thier own if they want to open it.--Degenret01 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I report every vandal on sight, view User:Buzz 9 1990#news

But i think that reporting isnt enough.

Do you think that i could get rollback rights??

View Buzz 9 1990^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Buzz 9 1990 ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 10:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Buzz, you don't need a Yew Grove discussion to get rollback rights. Just ask a b'crat on their talk page. But you should know, the only thing rollback does is revert vandalism slighly more quickly.--Diberville 15:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This part could be archived or deleted, done. Buzz 9 1990 ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 09:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes refreshes automatically

Hey guys. I've put some code in MediaWiki:Common.js from WoW Wiki that allows the recent changes to refresh automatically every 60 seconds. All you have to do is go to the recent changes page and select the "AJAX" box at the top of the page beside the header (it might take awhile to load). It's useful if you want to keep a window/tab open to the recent changes to patrol the wiki without having to refresh it all the time. It works in Firefox and Internet Explorer 7, though you must be logged in to see use it.--Richard 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, how come the admins don't turn green, and staff turn gold, etc? That's what it's supposed to do, but I've never seen it.  C Teng ^talk 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be your browser. I see the colours in Firefox and IE7.--Richard 00:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My browser? Can I do anything to fix it?  C Teng ^talk 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any colors for user rights groups either, but yet I'm using IE6. Gotta get that updated soon. Butterman62 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Special:Userrights

If a b'crat wants to make a user an admin or give rollback, the new special page Special:Userrights should be used. This page incorporates Special:Makesysop and Special:Giverollback (which no longer works anyway), so it is still possible to give users rollback rights.--Richard 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] editing help anoying!

Every time I'm trying to edit something some stupid window pops up giving suggestions this is very annoying cause i cant close it so i have to click a suggestion and then remover it from the text!--j-g 14:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found how you can turn it of now but its very complicated to turn it off this should be made easier!--j-g 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I also found this annoying and turned it off in my preferences. To anyone else out there that doesn't like this feature and can't find where to turn it off, you go to Preferences -> Editing -> Enable similar articles suggestions, and uncheck that box. Other than that, I think it's a general Wikia feature and not something the admins at this particular wiki have any control over.  Regabuh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to turn off either the tips or link suggest (or both), go to your preferences, click on the "Editing" tab, and check the boxes "Do not show editing tips" and "Do not show link suggest". They should then go away; I've turned them off and they haven't appeared again.--Richard 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that this feature is absurdly glitchy, and should have undergone testing before being integrated, you can dismiss the dialog by hitting the Escape key on your keyboard. Endasil (Talk) @  22:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other languages

Here, the community decided to add a set of links to the sidebar for our sister wikis. For convenience, the default setting of the links would be collapsed. However, I don't think it works as well as it sounded. The MonoBook skin's sidebar takes a few seconds to collapse, which blocks the search bar. The Quartz skin's sidebar cannot be collapsed, and takes too much space. I did vote for the sister wikis links, but I didn't think it would be like this. I now think that having a link to sister wikis is pointless. It is simple to just go to the Main Page and click the link there. Instead of links linking to the Main Pages of other wikis, we could have an "other languages" table, like from Wikipedia. Clicking on the links there would take you to the same article on a wiki with a different language. To do this, all you have to do is put [[language letters:article]] on the page. For example, if there were a "Yew Grove" on the Spanish RuneScape Wiki, you would put, [[es:Runescape:Yew grove]].The only page on the wiki that uses this is the Main Page. But I think that if there were links all over the wiki for this, it would be a lot better than the "sister wikis" link we have now.  C Teng ^talk 01:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I also dislike the collapable sidebars. A lot of wikis use the article linking for different languages and it gets positive responses. I think it would be a good idea. You should also tell the other language wikis about the idea so they can link to the english RS Wiki (here). It might get a bit tedious though. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 09:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to add the languages to articles. Anyone else, please help. If we get enough language links on enough articles, maybe the sister wikis links can come off.  C Teng ^talk 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I'm mostly working on Dutch. I've cleared out Portuguese and Bulgarian, but I can't figure out Taiwanese or German; they're in different languages. Could someone work on another language while I finish Dutch? Better yet, the whole community could just do an article and have the whole thing done.  C Teng ^talk 23:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand...if other language wikis want to reference their language from ours, shouldn't it be their responsibility? Why don't we just go to the other wikis and say, "feel free to link our pages to yours if you have a substitute for your language?" I don't think we need to be working too hard to send people away from our site. Endasil (Talk) @  00:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. One of the reasons I want to do this is to get rid of the set of links, because of its problems. But I guess we could also start linking to our site from the other wikis.  C Teng ^talk 02:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Message from Total Rune

Ok, I've been helping out around here, every so often, and I'd like to state for the record, that as per the above discussion about vandals, none were me. Plain and simple, I've been too busy with work to bother with you guys, not that I'd vandalize anyway; I've given that life up. I no longer want to be the guy everyone hates/the infamous legend/etc. I still to this day browse this wikia and whenever I see something being vandalized, or any personal images (a good example of personal images was earlier today, I used this IP to add deletion tags to several personal images), I tend to go and fix it.

Let's face it, I've had a troubled past. Despite that, I've managed to put that behind me, and continue to (discreetly) help out around here. I'm addicted to Wikipedia/Wikia. I love the way it works, and I'm looking into a way to incorporate MediaWiki into my website so I can do a biography/account log type page, logging all my accounts on forums, games, etc.

I've strayed away from my original reason for posting this. I'd like to formally apologize, once and for all, for everything I've done. I know I've apologized in the past and then strayed back to the dark side, so to speak, but I'll be honest. Blanko's been behind it. I've got him on my MSN and lately he's been coming on and prodding at me, trying to get me to back and vandalize again. Also, Totalicus Rune was not me, rather, it was some fool trying to pose as me.

I'd really love to rejoin this community, either under my previous moniker, Total Rune, or under a new one, but I feel some of our older, more seasoned members would still hold a grudge against me. Wowbagger, I want to apologize for being a jerk towards you as well, but to be fair, most of the time, you had it coming with your attitude and ego. I especially owe Christine an apology. Christine, I've lost a fair share of friends in the past, due to my actions, some being due to my drinking problem, which I am currently battling. Out of all the friends I've lost, I miss you the most. I apologize for talking Speckle into bugging you. That was wrong of me. I'd also like to apologize for many of the lewd, and rude things I've said to you. That's not me. That's not me at all...I'm not that kind of person.

RuneScape Wikia, I bid you good day. I have to work in the morning and I need some sleep. Total Rune04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm willing to give you a second chance; I can't speak for the rest of the community, however. Earth_talk

I'll be 100% honest with you guys. I really don't expect anyone to be forgiving towards me, after all the stupid sh..er...crap I pulled. My life was just in a rut and I was taking it out on those who aggravated me in the slightest. I'm trying to get my life back together. As of today I'm quitting smoking and I'm gonna cut back on my drinking as well. I'm trying to change my life for the better, and I wanted to start by apologizing to those who I aggravated for so long. 70.49.204.107 04:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this serious? A second chance? Please tell me I am dreaming. This is a person who not only is a vandal, but a pest, and constant annoyance to this and many other wikis including the Oddssey wiki, that he started and then vandalized, Wikipedia, which he told everyone he was committing suicide, and then they (wikipedia) called the cops on him. Do we really need to give him a second chance? I am not be the person responsible for his well being if we let him back. I think every ip he uses should be blocked. Cheers! Atlandy 14:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I never knew you, Total Rune, but I'd be willing to give you one more chance. If you become a vandal again and ask for another chance later, you won't get one.  C Teng ^talk 14:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Here is an exmaple of Total's contributions to wikipedia [1] [2]

(For those of you who dont know him) Cheers! Atlandy 15:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know of him, who hasn't? I just mean I wasn't in the wiki then.  C Teng ^talk 17:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the suicidal threats, it would be best for Total to explain those actions before we make any judgments (I'm admittedly cautious myself).