User talk:The Excel/Archive 7

Archive 6
Archived 02:54, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * First to muddy your clean talk page. = ) 02:57, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol. 03:02, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well, if someone really wanted to stalk me, they would find that the picture is also posted somewhere that I do have my age. However, I'm pretty sure that it isn't connected to my Facebook or anything. 18:32, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting article, but from what I've gotten, this was a contest based on whether or not the internet browser alone was susceptible to being hacked, this doesn't take into account firewalls, computer defense mechanisms, nor your network locking ability. However, this is a very interesting article to read. Thanks, 22:22, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!! 02:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Your signature doesn't expand anymore? *Insert sad or depressed face here* 02:14, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh - the chances of someone stalking me (Or Jim) is very small. Plus I have 3 different types of protection software on my computer - so someone tracking me through the internet is quite small. :P 08:27, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't use chrome. = O 03:50, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, okay. 03:58, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

RE:Evidence
Thanks for clearing it up. Cheers, 21:17, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

That's how. 22:59, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

What would you propose then? 23:19, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think you should have done that instead of criticising the way I handled it. 22:53, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Since you were "invited" to it, explain to me what you think I should have done as opposed to what I did. 23:14, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, we can't let it be just because they claim the information is false. You found the forum post after this happened, so I don't see how I would be responsible for proving whether or not the information is true or not. {C}I think this is a pretty clear indicator of what should be done instead of editing the clan page. 23:38, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, please block 76.200.233.118 since Mini has not responded yet. 02:08, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Blocking Template
Hey there. If you could look at the new Blocked template that I made and just check the coding before it starts to be used, that would be good. Thanks, 07:38, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and it was just when I looked at the archive template in preview mode it wouldn't work. But out of preview mode is works fine :P 00:05, March 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Excel, can I get you to have a read through this page: Forum:User Block Policy Re-Write, and comment and add any further suggestions. Thanks! 06:35, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

RE:Merchanting
Merchanting doesn't work if you want quick money, merchanting is gaining large amounts of money in the long run. For quicker money I would suggest you refer to this guide. Good luck. Cheers, 01:01, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'll send you here. Have fun with your monies! 01:39, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

RE:I forget
I like my current one better. = P 13:31, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

RE:Clan
Heyy ... Well I'm trying this clan out but if they are crap I probably will... Thanks for the offer :P 03:05, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * My old clan wasn't the same as it use to be. They use to be friendly and events would be often, but now events are every now and then and the members in the clan are getting aggressive. Also, can I get you to look at this page and see why it automatically goes into source mode for Purewildman (his message is on my talk page and I have no idea why it's doing it). Thanks in advance :P 07:55, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Please block 98.175.245.210. 00:06, April 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, can you also keep an eye on Clan:Grindscape and deal with anyone who messes with the SDC template? Thank you in advance  00:15, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks a lot for fixing our coding issue! I'm really sorry to hear about being sick, hope you get better soon.

Sincerely

Purewildman 23:50, April 14, 2011 (UTC) and the Rogue Ninja Civilization

Speedy deletion candidate 01:20, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Your Proposal
I'm afraid I must decline. It is my strong belief, and that of Soldier's that there should be as few "power positions" as possible. Having one to two bureaucrats and two to four administrators is the best situation and I believe that holds true. Also, I have instated new security measures for my own sake and for that of my account so do not feel that should be a concern anymore. Soldier is also still a bureaucrat and I have maintained contact with him outside of this wiki so he is still available if something goes wrong. At this time I just feel that everything works and there is no reason to change the precedent. I respect your offer though and I am glad you brought it up. I will certainly be thinking about it. 03:31, April 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am considering most heavily, your proposal on a greater amount of admins. I believe that may certainly be necessary. I am going over the users here to find the best possible candidates (along with the two you mentioned). 14:02, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Party


You are officially invited to my 120 Dungeoneering party; May 19, 2011. 12:00 P.M. Eastern Time. World 67.

 01:48, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

It's fine, but next time remember to sign in before posting. = P 20:27, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

It happened again, lol. = ) 23:11, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this page. 23:13, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Signature
Nice signature, don't forget to show it off especially after you type something into a forum. Lol. = ) 18:29, June 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Lol. = P 20:40, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Hey
EXCEL!!!

Dude, it's been so long! I cannot thank you enough for this signature! It looks so cool!

In terms of coming back, TBH I never left. You could just say I was inactive. Still here, but not really here.

Heh, only if you want problems xD 16:41, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

A small request Excel. Offside Jimothy (Jim) and AoS Wannabe I think harbor some hostility towards me. If you could just ask them to leave me alone, and I them, that would be helpful. 16:46, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

RE:AMG!!
Lol; by the way try clicking "talk" in your signature on the last comment you left on my talk page, it kept me occupied for a good 5 minutes. = P 00:09, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Aww, it was fun to play with though. = ( 00:18, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Much better, lol. 00:41, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Away
Hey. Firstly, thanks for adding that clan to the list of clans. I am going to be on holidays for the next couple of week, but hopefully I'll check the wiki every couple of days. I'm currently in the middle of Australia (driving to Adelaide) because of all the plane chaos, using iPhone tethering for internet. So I'm basically asking if you could keep an eye on my talk page, and respond to anything that needs responding to. FYI I do like the new editor... ;P Thanks + ttyl 22:26, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Have a look at this template I made ages ago: Template:Update - to use it you type " Link ". This might make this template obsolete. 22:34, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

June 25
What will we do when Zerouh becomes inactive? 01:59, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Bots can't change picture formatting, however, I can replace the .gif images with .png images if someone were to upload a new .png image. 13:30, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

RE: SORRY
{C}Meh I saw it on others pages.....it seems you posted a link on my talkpage as well....I realize how bad corruption on minecraft files can get as well....which is kinda why I always make sure to backup my .minecraft folder or else I just keep a zipped version of the world somewhere on my computer. 14:24, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

RE:
I'm busy on my way to completionist cape, I would rather not get sidetracked now. Sorry, 20:33, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Guess you must have noticed that the ip address that you blocked earlier had also edited the rome page. 12:31, June 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you're so excited to do work, can you protect all closed forum discussions so that only sysops can edit? Cheers, 19:51, June 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please remember to add the blocked template (here) to a user's talk page if you block a user. Also, can you prevent using other blocking periods, other then the ones provided as guides. This is so that the Blocking policy can be followed and so that the template works. Lastly, I expect that you be a bit more diplomatic, as some of your recent comments to users could be taken rudely. Otherwise, good job. Thanks! 06:07, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * He's been warned, but hasn't been blocked before, by policy that is 3 days. 06:46, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Airblade86 is actually wrong and I am as well, if the discussion is closed then it should be archived and protected to prevent vandalism. The protection level should be placed at autoconfirmed instead of sysop. This is the normal protection level of archived pages, and since these discussions are closed they are to be considered as archived forum discussions. Cheers, 13:34, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Pages that have the "closed" template or haven't been edited in over 6 months should be considered archives. 20:17, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are protecting the pages to "autoconfirmed." 20:28, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

RE:EVIL
I can update those pictures and torture you more if you would like. = ) 21:40, July 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Lol. 23:19, July 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you set the protection level to sysop on the main page; in your explanation you say this is a high traffic page with a high risk of "phishing." What you don't understand is that you can't be "phished" unless you go to an alternate link in which you enter information or you have a keylogger virus or RAT in your system. Also, as for it being a high traffic page, the main page may be the most visited page but there should be NO protection on the main page unless it is subject to constant vandalism. Thanks, 23:30, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * If "risk" is what we based Wiki policies off of, then we should protect every commonly visited page to sysop since we don't want any harmful links to be posted. Before I rant, I want to say the basis of this argument is risk versus policy. I would like to stay on the policy side of this argument because the policies are implemented to minimize the risk associated with a Wikimedia/Wikia project. If someone does post a "bad link," it can be undone with a simple rollback or undo. Wikipedia projects are meant to be open to all editors, simply because there is a risk that there are immature and stupid people that use Wikipedia projects does not remove the fact that these people can be punished and their actions can be completely eradicated. 23:44, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand people who beg and can't read policies. Sorry, 23:49, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

RuneScape Clans Wiki is not a busy wiki, since the enablement of achievements only ~145 users have edited once or more, on RuneScape Wiki they have hundreds of users that edit or use the project daily. There is a need for the RuneScape Wiki's main page to be protected, our main page does not need to be protected. 00:02, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

The key phrase in the policy you showed me is: "maintaining the wiki's quality." The Wiki's quality is being damaged by protecting the main page. Protecting the main page discourages newer users from actively engaging in the community. What you may not realize is that, to many Wiki users, a protected main page indicates a volatile and over-protective wiki community, this turns users away from this project and damages our image as a friendly community. 00:06, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

00:09, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

You prove my point, RuneScape Wiki's main page is fully protected becuase it is such a large and diverse community. My point is that, on smaller Wikipedia/Wikia projects, users are discouraged when they are unable to edit commonly visited pages because they feel that their input is unwelcome or unneeded. This is where I stop typing until your reply because my hands hurt from typing and my raging is repetitive. 00:15, July 6, 2011 (UTC


 * Wow, just wow, that was a sad attempt at fixing the problem presented. Normally, I would agree with your decisions but this is just sad. 00:22, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Since policies and 5 paragraphs of counter-argument aren't considered good "reasons" I think I'll resort to one of the following:


 * 1. Raging on your talk page for a few more hours.


 * 2. Having an arbiter sort out this problem.


 * 3. Rage quit life.
 * 00:29, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * The third option is sounding more tempting now. 00:34, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * We've dealt with a lot of vandalism before, all of it has been eradicated, and no one yelled because we had someone post a .exe file on a page. Why should we treat the main page as this omnicient and sacred page? After all, it is only the most visited page because going to runescapeclans.wikia.com takes you directly there. 00:41, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a boastful comment. Anyways, I feel strongly about unarming the main page as you did about unblocking User:King Aeraes even though he could have used his rights and appealed the block on his talk page, and I follow policies not what a kid with a pink name says. 00:50, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Teach me how to count and read policies please? All I know how to do is breathe, sit in my mom's basement, play RuneScape, and type on your talk page. 00:54, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm the one following policies, can't you read where I posted the quote from the Common Wiki Policies? 00:56, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: He's right. 01:15, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

If you're worried about content on the main page then, why didn't you protect the templates instead of the page? 01:48, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * The quote you posted on my talk page is peripheral since we are not debating about templates, we are debating about whether or not to protect the main page. If you're best "reason" for protecting the main page is based on a small amount of risk then this discussion is pointless. You are hyped up after one user vandalized the main page. The user's edits were undone and the user was punished, some of my previous Wikia projects had to deal with 10+ vandals a day. In short, you are overreacting to a case of vandalism and you are overreaching with your sysop powers. 01:59, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, lets take a look at this Jeff. There is no side here this is not bias this is me wanting to protect the users and you wanting to have the front page not be protected. I am not saying sysops are the only competent editors of the wiki. I am saying that there are people that are dumb enough to click that. As well as the fact I have stated many times that all the content that needs capable editing has been allowed so with the edit marks. You are ignoring our policies on this wiki and favoring the Comm Central policies on your own personal opinion ignoring user safty and disregarding all the thought I've put into this action. 02:27, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * YOU TWO ARE IDIOTS~! NO ONE IS GOING TO EDIT THE MAIN PAGE THAT IS NOT 1 A VANDAL OR 2 AN ADMIN BECAUSE THERE IS NO POINT TO!!! I AM DONE ARGUING ABOUT THIS. 02:01, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I will unlock it if you guys think it's that big of a problem but NOTE I will send anyone who gets scammed and is complaining to you guys! 02:04, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also note I see nothing the matter with increased mesures to protect our users! Why should we put them at greater risk when it could be prevented! 02:06, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * & lastly take note that no one is being put at risk by this. No one is being put into a position of power, givin un unfair advantage, or anything else damaging all the people not knowing how to edit concerns were adressed with edit notes as well. If you guys continue to push this you are truely nothing but a jack ass to anyone who comes on here & without thinking clicks a bad link on the front page that could look something like this
 * Clan Citadels Click HERE!!! . or
 * Clan Citadel Articles are fineshed get info about the update here!!!
 * 02:12, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's times like these, The Excel, I doubt your competence with extra tools, note that this isn't the first outburst you've had since your Adminship. You, so far today, have failed to understand that Rule #3 in the RuneScape Clans Wiki policies kicks in after common-sense does and you have failed to control your self. This was a productive debate in which both sides presented a case to fix a problem, but in the end you could not control yourself but you didn't stop there, you continued to show your bias by presenting Sysops as the only competent editors on the wiki. Understand that in most Wikia projects, annonymous users provide the greatest amount of information and diversity in a community. Sorry to say but I have lost my faith in your ability to properly execute the powers of sysop. 02:14, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * By that token, we should protect every single other page too, right? Please use the internets at your own risk. 02:16, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * No Jim, the main page takes higher priority because one of these bannors would be seen by everyone entering the wiki for the first time & most users. It would be 10x less likely for a vandal to create a clan page or get lucky enough for someone to post missleading info. 02:27, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Also I'm sorry I offened you but your taking this from what I appears to me as a selfish mannor. I'm not giving people b'crat status as an un named user did. Even if I could I wouldn't without the rest of you saying that is ok. The only reason this page was locked without question(s) is the fact that the page is such a high trafic and high priority page and guys lets face it we are not around 24/7 people are using this at any time of the day. The poll shows a flat out number of 61 users which i promiss not all users vote on that poll. Regardless of wether they are people reading or clan owners they are uses and the safty of our users shouldn't be comprimised because a wiki policy states so. Most wiki's are about flower gardens bicke riding and other things and therefore do not need this type of protection where user security could be put at risk by a vandal's edit to the main page. I am outright offened at the both of you and your inability to see this for what it is. It's a generic policy that doesn't work here & following it could endager our repuation as a wiki. If protecting and upholding our reputation as well as our users security shouldn't be one of my concerns then perhaps you should tell me who is because I would love to explain this to the guy who is incharge here so he can explain it to you guys. 02:27, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the esay but appearently I need to explain myself in much much more detail. 02:27, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Any farther questions will be answered in my friends chat kthnxbia 02:36, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the esay but appearently I need to explain myself in much much more detail. 02:27, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are fabricating fake incidents to support your position, my position is that the community can handle itself, and this is not fabricated. My position has been proven almost every day and it continues to be proven because we are logical enough to revert vandalism and warn vandals to stop or they'll face the consequences. All in all you base your facts on false assumptions whereas I am basing my facts on actual events that have occured and on policies. Also, saying that Community Wiki policies don't encompass all other Wikia projects is false because it is stated that it does. There is no policy on this Wikia project that says that The Excel has the right to fully protect the Main Page without any reason other than a hypothetical risk. 02:43, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I SAID FRIEND CHAT >.> 02:47, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Issue
Excel, I am not sure if you think that because I am slightly less active that you think I am not here and paying very close attention. I would suggest you think about and then give your next few words to me very carefully. 02:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are doing. It is your actions I am concerned with. Going against community consensus, presenting biased information, and having outbursts at other members is what I am concerned with. I happen to disagree with the altering of Main Page Protection because it is against core values, community wishes, and the founding purpose of almost every Wiki. Because several others, now including myself, have made that clear I have changed the protection back. You had an idea, you put it forth, and it got shot down. It happens to me all of the time. There is no shame in that. You must simply move on and work towards better, stronger ideas. 03:15, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who gave me a huge lecture about FOLLOW POLICY NOT PEOPLE a while back? 03:37, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, I understand your opinion but because many of the rest of us disagree, we are settling it at that. The page will not be protected at this point. The outbursts and biased information towards myself and other users here is something that should be handled. You do have a history of both and the community recognized this. That is what you should be speaking on at this moment. 05:36, July 6, 2011 (UTC)