RuneScape talk:Status and opinion-weight

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:Status and opinion-weight page.

Improvement plox[edit source]

This definitely needs improvement, with the phrasing if nothing else. Well, I think so. anyway. Feedback pl0x. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 20:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of this. It should have a little more info. Or no, its a simple topic, but yet a major rule, it doesn't need all that much info in it.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs02:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, im not trying to insult or start a war here, but you should rephase the part where All editors are equal. Its just not true for several reasons:

1. Some editors have higher authority than others, in terms of account status.

2. Some editors maybe be considered 'noobs'.

3. Some editors are just mean and downright disrespectful, and dont deserve nothing but bans.

4. And other editors may not be liked by the wiki at all, in terms of personality, level, exc.

--Pkthis 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada[edit source]

Why is it that I placed three images under "speedy deleetion," of the three, two were deleted, with the exception of Canada serv.svg? All editors are equal and it was already decided that images used personally with no use in articles must be deleted from this site. I realize the flag has a long-time presence here, but that's no reason to circumvent what was proposed. AriasCombatSwords.pngKnight 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was avoiding this one (and I know another admin was as well) not because it's been here for a while, but because there are hundreds of uses of it that can't be taken out easily. We have deleted images like this in signatures before, but they were in templates so were easy to take care of. In this case, we're stuck either editing these pages or leaving the red links scattered across talk pages, which is something that it'd be nice to avoid. Skill 06:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This image is used here so there is no point in deleting it. --King Vivil Talk 21:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert to Essay[edit source]

Before anyone accuses me of policy POV pushing, I've been planning on making this edit long before my first RfA. May be coloured blue in the near 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The carefully-worded note about no prior experience is just to prevent people from gaming the system or using loopholes. It's nothing remotely controversial. May be coloured blue in the near 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Earthere, we can't just change policies. We need to get consensus at the yew grove first.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Butterman62 (talk).
I'll do a RFC for a consensus on the issue. =D
Honestly I could live with either version--if you were linked here from RfC, please give your honest opinion. If you like his version more, support it. whatever's best for the community... May be coloured blue in the near 05:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Yew Grove discussion if you're interested.

In your opinion, which version is more appropriate? =/ May be coloured blue in the near 05:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy version (Butterman). All editors being equal is the core fundamental policy of a wiki since anyone can edit and discuss changes to a page. There must not be a cabal of administrators/high level players/experienced editors. If there is disputed content, it should be discussed on the article's talk page to get community consensus and to determine verifability if it is in doubt. Dtm142 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I guess you're right. It's fine as a policy.
I didn't word the omitted statement very well. In the case that the newest version is disagreeable, feel free to revert. I really don't mind. May be coloured blue in the near 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

to be honest[edit source]

that isn't true. some people's opinions are valued more than others although they shouldnt be. such as more people would listen to Azaz129 than Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

People listen to Azaz because he's trusted, and his comments and such tend to have a lot of meaning and point to them. If he voted on a VfD to delete the Magic article, saying "omg lol i dont lyk this skil this pag shuld b dleted lol", then people would disregard that comment, among doing other things. The main point of this policy is to prevent corruption, formation of an oligarchy, cabal, and so on. If this policy wasn't here and we were ran by a hierarchal oligarchy in which whatever a bureaucrat says goes, then we would have to delete the Magic article without question in the hypothetical scenario I mentioned earlier. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 19:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested[edit source]

By "official capacity", I assume you mean any time a JMod is using his/her Gold Crown, rather than any personal account with the same name?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NobleKorhedron (talk) on 13:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC).