Forum:Near Vandalism of My Recent Edits

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Near Vandalism of My Recent Edits
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 October 2010 by Liquidhelium.

Recently, I have been correcting posts that have been mentioning "merchanting" with a more precise definition. Several players have taken it upon themselves to consistently undo my edits, even where the edit constituted a complete rewrite of the article.

I would like some help on the matter to tell these editors to stop and to revert their edits if they don't. (the ones that revert my edits)

Examples: Trading sticks: "merchanting" -> "GE trading" Slang dictionary/F: "A merchanting term that refers to when you buy an item for a lower price then sell it immediately after you get it, usually for a higher price." -> "A trading term that refers to buying an item and then within a short period of time selling it for a profit."

Yellow bead: "Beads are a common item chosen by merchanting clans" -> "Beads are a common item chosen by price manipulation clans." Pay to pk riot: "Merchanting" -> "the art of player-to-player trading"

In each case, the article means different things, yet was described with the same slang word.

More info: While I am not opposed to the wiki mentioning "merchanting" as player slang, it is just that, and has no place on any other article except in passing. Slang is bad, because it has no set definition (as it's not actually a word in the language), and thus should not be used in something akin to an encyclopedia, which this wiki is.

These editors have confused this wiki for Runescape. They have all the right in the world to say "your" instead of "you're" and "merchanting" instead of "trading", "flipping", "investing", "GE trading", or "price manipulation", but they are mistakenly transposing their own incorrect language onto the rs wiki, and trying to stop anyone from correcting it.

I have even been called a grammar nazi, now. Amazing logical jump... I'm not correcting their spelling, am I? I am correcting the wiki.

They have even said "well, everyone says 'merchanting', so you're wrong!" Wrong. Even more so, I heavily edited and improved the Advanced trading guide over 6 months ago and largely got rid of this word. No one complained; one person even encouraged me to edit that monster if I had the interest to do so.

Even worse, they are now just blanket undoing everything in my edit rather than even starting to consider what was edited. --Agamemnus 03:05, October 9, 2010 (UTC)



The word "merchanting", however illogical and made up, is accepted as a word by the RuneScape population. Who cares if it's made up? People use it and you're not going to be able to stop them from doing so. Anyway, "Player-to-player trading" and "Grand Exchange trading" don't have the same meaning as "merchanting". ʞooɔ 03:10, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Also, you need to work out your problems with the people who are reverting your edits. Arguing with them to the point of exhaustion will get you nowhere. ʞooɔ 03:12, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
It can be made up, and I am not stopping them from using it, but it has no place in the rs wiki except as I stated above.
>'Anyway, "Player-to-player trading" and "Grand Exchange trading" don't have the same meaning as "merchanting"'-- there is no one accepted definition. The people who reverted my edits revert whether it means one or the other thing.
>Arguing with them to the point of exhaustion will get you nowhere.
That is why I made a post here...--Agamemnus 03:17, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Comment from, an involved party This is pretty much what i've wanted this entire time, for him to bring this to the friken community instead of unilaterally changing it, especially since the majority favor the other opinion. Btw, iwe do know what is in your edit, and therefor see no reason then to blanket revert because its the same thing every time--jakezing 03:21, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
So, my reward then, is basically vandalizing my edits. Great job.--Agamemnus 03:24, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Reward for doing something that is obviously opposed by a number of people? You have yet to find a single person who would even back you up, hell, I would if I didn't want this to be a guide to runescape, and that means merchanting is included. --jakezing 03:26, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
I'm done talking to you. You've committed and have been called on the numbers fallacy repeatedly, and you continue to vandalize my posts.--Agamemnus 03:42, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
He has not "vandalised" your posts in any way possible. Please cease making false accusations. 222 talk 04:17, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose/Comment - Per Cook. Also, why did Agamemnus even take it upon himself to remove all traces of the word "merchanting" without consensus in the first place? He should have been aware that doing such a thing without even consulting the rest of the Wiki would inevitably lead to this stand-off between him and the people who disagree with him. That's what I don't understand...[1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 03:13, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you haha. And just for reference: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia (such as swearing, deleting letters to make inappropriate words, etc.) (see also Newbie experiment)" No matter which side we take, one group (him) or the other (me and others reverting) is committing well-mentioned if misguided vandalism. --jakezing 03:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
If you had actually read my post here, you would have seen that I did the same thing in the advanced trading article 6 months ago, with encouragement. What changed? --Agamemnus 03:33, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
One change and a wiki wide change are two entirely different concepts. Second, Who supported it?--jakezing 03:35, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Everyone who didn't mind that an enormous article was completely modified, and one person who encouraged me to do it, I guess?--Agamemnus 03:39, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
And another thing, BicycleCat. You said: "that's most likely because most people on the Wiki are aware that so-called "merchanting clans" are in fact price-manipulation clans and are happy with the article being renamed to such in order to educate other players about the dangers of investing in price-manipulation clans. " Well, you're wrong, because that article actually used "merchanting" indiscriminately, just like some of the other articles I have attempted to change.--Agamemnus 03:39, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Still, you should've made a Yew Grove thread about the use of "merchanting" on the Wiki and waited until consensus was reached before you took it upon yourself to remove all traces of that word. All you've managed to do now is upset many of the other users on the Wiki. Please think about that before you go removing all traces of "merchanting" again. [2] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 03:43, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Anybody who cares knows what Merchanting is; despite the multiple ways you can apply it. Ultimately a Merchant is a subclass of a Trader, who uses the system to gain profit at the cost of normal economic life.

Second, Silence DOES NOT imply consent, and one person does not equal the entire wiki.--jakezing 03:42, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

It's not slang, it's jargon. Or at the very least, it's a bit of both: It's made up, but it has a specific definition within the confines of the game that is regularly agreed upon by those that use it. If you disagree with that definition, that's fine, but the majority of us presumably agree with it and see no reason to eradicate its proper use on the wiki, hence the criticism and string of reverts. Aldra 03:51, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, you did not read my opening post, and so your opinion is noted but completely invalid. I showed examples of where "merchanting" meant four different things.--Agamemnus 03:55, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
That was very rude of you.His opinion does matter, as all p-eople here are equal ;)--jakezing 03:55, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
"People are born equal", but all opinions are not equally valid against the facts. Again another fallacy.--Agamemnus 03:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
RS:EQUAL says otherwise.--jakezing 03:58, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
That says nothing about the validity of opinions. I just have to ask, but are you a troll? Why am I even replying to you?--Agamemnus 04:01, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Please stay on topic, take all debates of policy interpretations to the talk pages. And Agamemnus, if you care so much, make a Yew Grove thread to amend it. 222 talk 04:03, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
This is not a case of debate.--Agamemnus 04:08, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

(reset tabs) This may not be a debate, but it is still an off-topic discussion, it is still to be taken to the talk pages. 222 talk 04:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict x3 Actually, silence does imply consent, if you read RS:C. However, it is very weak and this discussion has basically eradicated all forms of consent, if any. 222 talk 04:01, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict x3 Strong oppose - These edits should not have been done in the first place, per Cook. Jargon or not, the term "merchanting" has its place within the RuneScape community. Also, it is perfectly fine to have jargon here, considering the only people who would go to this site with a reason are RuneScape players, who obviously understand these terms. 222 talk 04:01, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I've been saying that this entire time, just without the official tact and logic he and others used. --jakezing 04:04, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Well said. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:06, October 9, 2010 (UTC) 
It is not jargon. Jargon is actually well-defined. Please re-re-re-read my OP. This is slang, because it is not well-defined.--Agamemnus
It is still jargon, it may not be well defined, but it is widely used and almost unanimously understood by the wider RuneScape community, thus it is accepted language and shouldn't be removed. 222 talk 04:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
How many times am I going to have to read that post before you will accept my opinion? I've already read it at least four times now, at your request. I still disagree with it, and rereading it won't change that. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:16, October 9, 2010 (UTC) 
To be honest you'd be a good politician agam. And im assuming reread it til you get tired and cave in.--jakezing 04:20, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
TLUL, that was to Agame, right? I'm confused by the missing colon. 222 talk 04:24, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:25, October 9, 2010 (UTC) 
TLUL, If you're going to say you "agree with thebrains222", you also say you are agreeing with "Cook Me Plox". S/he did not understand the premise of the argument, making the same points I MADE, such as saying Anyway, "Player-to-player trading" and "Grand Exchange trading" don't have the same meaning as "merchanting".. Do you agree with this? If you do, as you stated you did, you also agree with me. So how can you also disagree with me? --Agamemnus
Just for the discussion, agam has continued to revert, subverting the 3RR rule using his unlogged in IP.--jakezing 04:28, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Also "just for discussion", jakezing has been vandalizing my edits. If he really disagreed with just one word, he would only change that word instead of the whole word. That is not a revert, it is removing vandalism. --Agamemnus
What IP is that, you should explain to an administrator his actions as they are breaking the rules. 222 talk 04:34, October 9, 2010 (UTC) 04:35, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot see an active admin in recent changes currently. For the record, two rules are currently being broken: RS:3RR and RS:GTS. 222 talk 04:37, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I am not breaking any rules. I am removing his vandalism. If you see the pages in question (which he didn't actually mention), you would see that is clearly the case. He is not just replacing words as is his argument here, he is simply reverting wherever he wants.--Agamemnus
You are definitely not reverting vandalism. What you are doing is breaking two rules, refusing to come to terms with other's opinions and refusing to discuss the issue at hand. Cease reverting vandalism and finish this discussion before continuing. 222 talk 04:46, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Oh and just so you all know, I actually am looking at what im reverting, every time just to make sure.--jakezing 04:48, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I really don't give fuck, but Agamemnus, through the use of your account and IP have been violating the Wiki's policy on three-reverts. To keep debating and troll-baiting as you are is unsettling at the very least and outrageous. I do not care whether who is right or wrong but that you must realize that this is a group project with many different views. If you cannot accept that then take your attitude elsewhere. No one is "vandalizing" your edits as you seem to be the only one acting as such and going to your IP to edit (which makes it fairly easy to find out who uses the IP as they are less anonymous than a logged in user) isn't the best thing in the world. I do not intend to re-read this thread nor will I. Also, stop with the damn indents, it isn't helping the skin. Ryan PM 04:43, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken. I logged off because I didn't want Jakezing2 to continue to message me. And, when you say that no one is vandalizing my edits, have you actually looked at them to check? And if you don't care, then... --Agamemnus
I use the recent changes. and i am sorry for the messages I sent before, they were immature although I wasnt really doing anything wrong, just acting stupid.--jakezing 04:50, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Notice - Agamemnus has been block for 1 day for edit warring/breaking 3RR by Karlis. 222 talk 04:56, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Both users should have been blocked; they were both violating the 3RR. But meh. ajr
If you feel i should get a oneday as well, i'll be willing to accept it :) mostly i just planned to edit my religion article now.--jakezing 05:05, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Agamemnus, if you want to be taken seriously this is not the way to go about it. Continuing an edit war over an obviously debatable topic only gets people riled up. Politely make a case for this change (as opposed to contesting the reverts), and go from there. Big Bouffant 05:04, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It is widely accepted and being widely accepted is how words are made, like "[[google:define:truthiness|Truthiness]]". Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 05:07, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Per a discussion in IRC, I'm explicitly stating my opinion: I agree with the one particular statement that "GE trading" and "merchanting" are not the same thing, however, I disagree with the overall post and Agamemnus' refusal to accept other viewpoints. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC) 

Oppose, but confused - The proposal, as outlined above, is ridiculous. (Reverting others' edits blindly in retaliation if they don't stop?) But using more precise language and terminology is a no-brainer. Propose to use the proper term for each context here in the Grove, and you may find far more support. Use of the word "merchanting" for a dozen different types of behavior, and say, five degrees of valor or odiousness in each case, calls for more than one word. BTW, how many of you are buying sweetcorn seed right now? :D - TheLastWordSword -- 18:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to route this discussion around whether Agamemnus made a poor decision and focus it on the valid point that he had: we use official, real, professional terminology, and we only use slang when we provide an explanation for that slang.

For example, in Air rune, the first section of the infobox includes "Also known as ... Airs." We haven't titled our article "Airs" because we don't utilize slang ourselves, but, again, explaining it is part of our job, so we've provided a redirect and an infobox. In the case of a reader who doesn't understand what "flipping" or "price manipulation" is, we have a redirect from "merchanting" to the advanced trading guide which explains in relatively simple terminology the different types of methods collectively and unprofessionally considered "merchanting" by the player base, and it wouldn't be very difficult to add a link to the advanced trading guide to each instance of the exact and professional terms wherever we use them.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to replace, in Agamemnus' first example, "merchanting" with "trading" as the link still takes the player to the advanced trading guide, and it better explains the situation. For his second example: price manipulation is "merchanting," but "merchanting" is not necessarily price manipulation, so it makes sense to use the words "price manipulation." For his third: instead of "the art of player-to-player trading," "player-to-player trading" would have sufficed, but the point remains that "merchanting" does not mean player-to-player trading; the point remains that "merchanting" is far too general with its large number of connotations, and it is therefore best, for accuracy and clarity of content, both of which I believe we as a source of information should strive for, that we replace the ambiguous term "merchanting" with the correct terminology. Opinions?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leftiness (talk) on 23:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC).

Honestly, I don't have as much of a problem with the idea itself as the way Agamemnus went about it. I'm for starting a new discussion about the change in a new topic on the Grove (though that does NOT mean that it's ok to keep changing things, the status quo for each page, whatever it currently is, should be left till consensus is met). Aldra 19:37, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - How about the phrase "merchant trading" rather than merchanting, sice that's a realistic equivilent that is grammatically correct. However, I will say that merchanting is the accepted form among RS players, and in the end correct language always comes down to use. --Henneyj 14:16, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Not only is "merchant trading" just as general and vague as "merchanting," but also I don't believe slang terms become correct, official, or professional words just by people using them. In my opinion, a correct, official, professional use of the terminology would involve the accurate terminology - not the popular terminology. Leftiness 19:11, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I do agree with that, the term is often overused including at times when merchanting is a correct description of what is happening. However there are some cases where merchanting is accurate, eg with clans. Also, I don't see merchant trading as a vague term since its a real life term for buying and selling for a profit. Henneyj 21:10, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
The point is that there are ways in which someone may buy and sell for a profit as described in the advanced trading guide. First, there is no "merchanting" clan that doesn't focus on price manipulation; there's no reason to have a clan if you're investing, flipping, or whatever you're doing. Because of the "price manipulation" association with "merchanting," it would be best in my opinion to substitute "price manipulation" for "merchanting" wherever it applies for the sake of accuracy and clarity, and an article about flipping or basic arbitrage will avoid the negative connotation as well as gain accuracy. Leftiness 23:01, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Pyramid scheme plans? Why not put it to a simple vote, that way we can actually have people decide, not 2-3 people? Or are we forgetting the consensus part of wiki ;)--jakezing 23:04, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
First, you've been told on more than one occasion to read RS:CONSENSUS. As I'm tired of your consistent and malevolent misuse of terminology that you apparently don't understand, I again suggest that you read it. Second, groups popularly referred to as "merchanting clans" don't perform pyramid schemes; that's when the leader has someone pay him $5, for example, and the people that the person recruits pay him $5, but $1 from each goes to the leader, and so on. "Merchanting clans" engage in insider trading and manipulation of Jagex's flawed price control system. Leftiness 02:35, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
So at the end you would propose "Price manipulation clan" as an accurate and renowned name (which means that title should be PMC rather than MerC), and rather "merchant clan" as a self-proclaimed and popular name (mentioned at first paragraph and more)? When I think about this I feel a bit fuzzed but...... sounds good. It really sketches the clans better. Rewlf2 04:41, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, I don't really understand what you're saying. I have no problem with referring to price manipulation groups in-game as "Merchanting clans," but, since we're a source of knowledge, I feel as though we should strive for accuracy and clarity, both of which the term "merchanting" doesn't provide due to ambiguity and vagueness. In my opinion, it's our job to inform our readers that the popular term is "merchanting clan," but it is also our job to professionally, officially, and correctly inform them of the accurate information, that the actions are correctly and officially referred to as "price manipulation," for example. Leftiness 02:35, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'll just post this here since this page is so unorganized and all over the place. Merchanting is an actual term in a dictionary (per some link or definition up this page), it is commonly used in the game that our wiki is centered around, and generally there is no real reason that I can see that we should "crusade" to take it out of the articles. It is a well understood term by the general public, and something a, say, 11 year old can keep up with and understand, rather than having some lengthy bit that he/she must ask a parent/guardian about. The YG seems to have some very liberal/radical ideas lately it seems. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 19:35, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I just don't understand why the constant lies. (1) "Merchanting" is actually not an actual term in any dictionary. (2) It being commonly used in the game gives NO STANDING as to its application in the wiki. Most RS users commonly confuse "you're" and "your", and have atrocious spelling and grammar. Should the RS wiki do the same? (3) It is commonly understood to be a vague term indicating one of the items I mentioned in the OP. I can't believe I am really that unclear,... or... am I?--Agamemnus
Not that it really makes any difference, but the word "merchant" is listed on a few online dictionaries as having a verb form (merchanting = present participle of merchant). Merrium-Webster is an example of one such dictionary. Big Bouffant 07:57, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
? "" There is no such "present participle" listed.----Agamemnus 16:30, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
We are not here to be the new Oxford dictionary. We are not here to say what should be said. We are here for Runescape players to come to when something gets in their way. We're here to tell them how to maximize their enjoyment and minimize their frustration. They do not bend to us, we bend to them to accommodate them. If there is a word that players use more often than another, we should use that word to boost their experience here that one extra step. I can understand if it was "13375p34k", but it is not. Merch, Merching, whatever the cause may be, it is what THEY'RE using in everyday exchanges. It's not vulgar, it's not offensive, it's just a medium of language to get the same point across. In my opinion, it's not worth the trouble of changing everything, and it is an incredibly minor detail in the grand scheme of things. We work for the player (which is most of us in turn, but I digress). If it makes it easier for a few people while only unsettling a few for technical reasons, I still say we hand it to the player and use their term. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 19:55, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
@Agam, dictionaries don't always list every possible verb conjugation. The link you posted does, however, show "merchant" as having a verb form (under the "entries found" list). "Sing" becomes "singing", "merchant" (the verb, not the noun) becomes "merchanting". Big Bouffant 01:59, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. Not all verbs have a present participle.----Agamemnus 21:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
@Chaos: Should we then title our articles "Zammy legs," "SGS," "Red chins," and so on? They are used in everyday exchanges, they are not vulgar, and so on, and, despite how much I despise the argument of "Too much work," please explain to me how a redirect, for example, from something like "Merchanting Clans" to "Price Manipulation Clans" would not maintain the usefulness for the player while being more accurate and more professional at the same time. Of course, the article would also mention that "merchanting" is a popular term, as do other articles, including my current example, Air rune, which says "Also know as... Airs."
To those arguing about dictionary definitions, I still hold that the term "merchanting" is popularly and vaguely applied to actions which could be more professionally and accurately described whether or not it is a real word. True, "merchanting clans" do sell commodities for a profit, but is it not more accurate and thereby more professional to use the term "price manipulation?" As a source of information, should we not strive for accuracy and professionalism - especially where, per my above paragraph, there are no detriments? Leftiness 05:43, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
Leftiness pretty much hit the point of my paragraph on the head. I knew I forgot something, and that was "with rational reason". It is not rational to name an article of a named object such as Saradomin sword (there's actually a sub-section in the info box for alternative/"hip" names for items), but it is rational to use a player accepted term for unnamed objects or actions. Take, for example, the rose bush near the old Juliet house. You may say it's just "bush", and I say it's a "rose bush", but they're two different perceptions of the same object and are pretty irrelevant to everything unless you're studying game scenery.
Oh, and Jagex has even used the term "merchanting" themselves, so in my mind that adds just a bit more validity to it being a widely used term, an icing on the cake if you will. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 19:09, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
How does it add validity? I contend that it does not. The fact that Jagex sometimes uses that word just means they can't spell for beans. They're not exactly known for their perfect grammar. ----Agamemnus 21:11, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
If it's good enough for them, I think it's good enough for us. Oh, and they do spell pretty well since they fix up their mistakes all the time. The only spelling errors I ever see are in new quests, and those are fixed within a month or so. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 03:00, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
If that's the case, then by your logic, we should just convert all of this to the RS manual. It's good enough for them! Also, who do you think tells them about their mistakes? After going through several months of QA they still regularly DO make mistakes, and the players report them... Many spelling errors are left unfixed for years! ----Agamemnus
In the end, it's that my perception of the issue is different than yours, so I think this sub-section should just end before it noms the whole page into oblivion. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 16:43, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Current articles with "merchanting" (2)


These are currently the topics in question which still have the word "merchanting" or "merchanters". (not "merchants".. "merchanters" [!!])

World switching
Copper ("merchanters" -- also not a word)

Also, this is vandalism. It is not a joke, or a false accusation. The paragraph was rewritten and then my efforts were undone for no good reason:

"World switching used to be very important in merchanting as prices often varied between worlds when shops had limited stock. This was noticeable in the fishing shop in Port Sarim, particularly with the prices of lobster and swordfish. Another type of merchanting was Vial hopping. It consisted of buying out the stock of Herblore potion vials in a particular shop then switching worlds and repeating the process. With the Shop Improvement update, this type of merchanting became obsolete."

"World switching used to be very important in collecting shop goods, as prices often varied between worlds when shops had limited stock. This was noticeable in the fishing shop in Port Sarim, particularly with the prices of lobster and swordfish. A similar method was Vial hopping. It consisted of buying out the stock of Herblore potion vials in a particular shop then switching worlds and repeating the process. With the Shop Improvement update, world hopping/switching became obsolete."

--Agamemnus 19:13, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

We haven't decided to remove merchanting yet to my knowledge, so how bout leave the articles as they are? As to the edit, what was the change?--jakezing 22:11, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
...--Agamemnus 22:54, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Listen here, the reverts done were not vandalism. They were in good faith, and so were your edits, both parties made a mistake and they both got punished for it. Don't try and make out that what you did was right and what they did was wrong. Let's discuss it here - do we want to use the term "merchanting" or not. In the meantime, stop changing merchanting to other words, feel free to edit but don't change it until we have consensus here.

Also, your example is an exact case of what should have been done, until we have consensus do not change words, or they can be reverted. Finally, if that is an example of re-writing a paragraph and it having been reverted; you are completely mistaken, the only change there is the word "merchanting", not paragraph re-writing or anything else. 222 talk 06:12, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

>the only change there is the word "merchanting"
If you look very carefully you will see that isn't the case. There are a few other edits where there more major paragraph rewriting, eg:
--Agamemnus 19:25, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Don't lie to yourself, please. The only changes there were the removal of merchanting and some minor spelling/grammer fixes, if any. Again, you need to learn and abide by the rules we have here, especially RS:CONSENSUS. You have no consensus that says "merchanting" is not an acceptable term, so stop making these edits. Your edits are in good faith and I can see that you are trying to help, so I really don't want to ask an admin to warn or block you for breaking policies again. 222 talk 05:13, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? "so stop making these edits."??? I never made an edit to any of these threads after the first person told me about the 3RR rule. A threat for discussion? Gg, sir.. you take the cake.--Agamemnus
>"Don't lie to yourself, please. The only changes there were the removal of merchanting and some minor spelling/grammer fixes, if any"
"Finally, if that is an example of re-writing a paragraph and it having been reverted; you are completely mistaken, the only change there is the word "merchanting", not paragraph re-writing or anything else."--Agamemnus

Comment - Looking through the history, while Agamemnus's edits were in good faith, Agamemnus should not have gone through with the wiki-wide purging of the word "merchanting." There is absolutely no reason why we can't use this word. As for understanding what vandalism is, Agamemnus was not correct to say people were vandalising your work. Their edits were in good faith, and you should have noticed that there could be something wrong when multiple people are undoing your edits. This really isn't anything that major, so just use this a learning experience so that stuff (reverting wars) like this won't happen in the future. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 05:51, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Of course.... right. Absolutely no reason, except all the reasons outlined above.--Agamemnus 19:25, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, please tell me who said merchanting was not an allowed word...Also, on a side note you need to start realizing that there is a lot of consensus that merchanting is a perfectly acceptable term, and that just because you feel strongly about that term, doesn't mean you can just edit out that word on every single article. Again, like others have pointed out, you need to familiarize yourself with RS:CONSENSUS. The way you rewrote the paragraphs does not capture the same meaning. If you won't take the advice of your fellow wikians, then it's your loss, not mines. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 23:53, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
It's not a matter of it being "allowed" or "not allowed".--Agamemnus
@Lil Cloud: First, there was never any consensus to use the term "merchanting." It was done, as the reasons above have shown, because players use the term, which, in my opinion, is no reason to be inaccurate. Second, the reasons to use "price manipulation," for example, instead of "merchanting" include accuracy of word choice and the professionalism that results from that accuracy, both of which this wiki should strive for as a source of information, as I've said. Also, to anybody, please stop focusing on Agamemnus' previous actions in this matter as what's done is done; here I would prefer to discuss a current issue that hasn't already been dealt with. Leftiness 15:12, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
@Left: Did you even read what the people who "opposed" wrote? Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 23:14, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
Trying to cut it shorter: Merchanting clan, this name, gives wrong impression that the clan merchants, in fact they control the price to gain money. Thus using Merchanting clan does not sketch the clans well, regardless the popularity of this name. Rewlf2 19:02, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
Just because it's correct doesn't mean it should be used... It's been my understanding for the last half-decade this wikis goal was a guide to runescape; and merchanting would be included in that. Now, if we decide to not use the term, thats fine. I could honestly not give a damn either way. But given we are about runescape... we SHOULD try to reflect the game right? I think we are still not remembering consensus, which is sort of the divine guide of wiki? --jakezing 20:46, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
First, I think it's ridiculous that you just wrote that. If it's correct, then we use it. If it's the popular terminology and not the correct terminology, as is "merchanting," then we make note in the article that the word is popularly used. A sufficient example of this may be found in Air rune, where the popular word is "Airs," and we call them "Air runes;" as I said, we still make sure to note that the term "Airs" is popularly used. As a guide to Runescape, using the correct and professional terminology still fulfills the purpose; as a source of information, using the incorrect and popular terminology is a travesty. In changing the word "merchanting" to, as an example, "price manipulation," I assert that we would increase our accuracy and professionalism with absolutely no detriment. Should it be decided that we use the term "merchanting" as if it's correct and professional, I don't believe we would be very far away from titling our articles "SGS" and "Zammy Legs."
Also, I don't understand why you continue to reference RS:CONSENSUS. If you're searching for some sort of middle ground, you aren't showing it, and I don't believe there is any middle ground on this issue. If you think you're being unfairly represented or you believe that your argument has merit and it's not being taken into consideration, understand that the admins will take those aspects into account, should they be true, as we are not a majority-ruled community, a democracy, or anything of the sort. Personally, I fail to understand how you believe using more accurate and more professional terminology will be detrimental, and I'd like to hear your reasoning. For example, do you think it will be less accurate to substitute "price manipulation" where it's relevant? Leftiness 05:33, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
I honestly do not care which way it goes. My only issue is if we are going to correctly represent runescape. IT is correct spelling/grammer/blah, I just want this wiki to reflect the game it's based on.--jakezing 13:37, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
That does not mean "Go 2 varrock's ge & buy 2k zammy armour", I do hope not. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 20:40, October 23, 2010 (UTC)


{{closure|No recent activity}} --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 01:10, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to replace the use of "merchanting" or any related words in articles. --LiquidTalk 02:09, October 28, 2010 (UTC)