User talk:Cook Me Plox

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



Welcome to our wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.

Recent changes is a great first stop, because you can see what pages other people have been editing, and where you can help.
Questions? You can ask at the Discord chat or on the discussion page associated with each article, or post a message on any editor's talk page.
Need more help? The Community Portal has an outline of the site and links to pages to help you learn how to edit.
Please sign in every time you edit, so that we can recognise an established user.
Learn how to customise your userpage.

I'm happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you!

Well hello der--Shockstorm (talk) 06:03, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking me on RuneScape Wiki[edit source]

Cook Me Plox, could you please unblock me on the chat on RuneScape Wiki? I did not mean to harass. -- TheSitcomLover 8:27pm, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

What are you doing here[edit source]

Temujin is head admin welcome to OSRS wiki here the elefint is our spirit animal too because the elefint is sacred to us --Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 05:04, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Shush Spine I have 2751 edits here.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cook Me Plox (talk) on 05:07, January 7, 2014 (UTC).
Pls I has 4,456. And I remember to sign st00f -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 05:18, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
No.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cook Me Plox (talk) on 05:25, January 7, 2014 (UTC).
Pls sign your comments or you is ban -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 05:33, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
I bet you can't ban me.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cook Me Plox (talk) on 05:45, January 7, 2014 (UTC).

How do you disable this?[edit source]

Currently, for images, everytime someone selects a category or license, this appears

Category:Chat head images

It doesn't even work, and spine and I got no clue how to stop it from appearing. Help please --Jlun2 (talk) 02:20, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

This guy has edited the godswords pages twice with wrong information:

He has good intentions but he's misguided on this issue. He thinks godswords have a hidden 7.5% boost... When they do not. It's 10% on top of whatever effect they have. This can easily be seen by looking up the max hit of a regular godsword no spec, then looking up/performing the max hit of a godsword with spec. And comparing the differences...

I don't know how to contact him to get him to stop editing the pages to 7.5%

Celtick (talk) 01:40, March 22, 2015 (UTC) Celtick

Praise the gloop![edit source]

Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png Weird gloop detail.png

-- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 03:17, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't make submission due to a very sensitive abuse filter.[edit source]

Hello Cook Me Plox,

First of, I'm not sure if this is the best way to message you. I had a problem submitting a post and I notified the Wikia staff of the error I received.

The error was this: "The modification you tried to make was aborted by an extension hook"

The Wikia staff said it is because my submission triggered the AbuseFilter due to have "bad words" set up by local admins for this wiki.

Well, I had not intentionally used any "bad words", so it will be hard to identify what the problems is. Per the Wikia staff, they suggest I let a local admin know that perhaps the filter is too strict.

Anyways, I hoping to make large edit to a page. How should I go about doing this?

Here is the response I received form Wikia:

Hello Millerni456,

Thanks for contacting us. Unfortunately, I think you may have run into a local AbuseFilter block - specifically a block on use of "bad words", created by local admins. Unfortunately, the VisualEditor is not very good at communicating this at the moment - I will make sure the technical team are aware of it.

I'm not able to pinpoint what exactly might have triggered it - the filter is fairly complex (and I hope you understand that I cannot reveal the exact contents as it may defeat the purpose). Did your edit possibly include some words that might have triggered this, to your knowledge? If so, you may want to message a local admin about the filter being too strict - you can find out the local admins via

I hope this helps explain it, and apologies for any confusion and frustration.

Best regards,

George Marbulcanti (Kirkburn) Wikia Community Support

EDIT: Well everything seemed to just "fix" itself. How strange. Apparently the offending word was in the "Jad Form" section of the Zulrah/Strategies page.

Millerni456 (talk) 22:39, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

More stuff[edit source] -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 16:40, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

Clean your errors.[edit source]

I just wanted to reach out and let you know that your site content is absolutely great. I "try" to come here for all of my OSRS needs. That being said... You need to clean up your links, and ads. I can't even use the site 85% fo the time it just freezes. You have 20+ errors in the console, don't seem to pay any mind to cross-domain or same origin policies. Such a waste of a great site. I avoid 2007.runescape links now because they normally jsut freeze up. Took me more than 10 tries to get to this page.

Busch13 (talk) 15:34, April 29, 2016 (UTC) Concerned gamer and webdesigner

Thank you![edit source]

Thanks! I've made a few edits on the old wiki in the past few days that I'll be bringing over to this one, hopefully they reach more people here :D

ps not sure how to do this hopefully i dont mess up ur page Remyma (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Concerning format in comparison to wikia page.[edit source]

HI! I picked you to contact because "plox"... Plox help me and i'll cook you real good(or i'll send you my shepherds pie recipe at the very least and you can cook yourself). I have nowhere else that I can think of going to get the left hand side bar to either become able to hide or for it to be similar to how the old wiki worked.

Edit: yeah... I had to google the definition of bureaucrat... so what? <_< eat me New wDiFUex.png

Old 3e1lV4J.png

See why it can be kinda a pain? otherwise the new site is AMAZEBALLZ! If it would be too tenuous to do for y'all I'd be more than happy to brush up on my skills to fix it for you guys but I'm a drunkard soooooo. It would be far easier to do it that way instead of managing the wikia and the new site... just sayin.

P.S. sorry for the shoddy images but I'm to drunk to fill up blank space.

Alchey (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Alchey (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

welcome to the gnome zone[edit source]


--dDbvitC.png Scuzzy Beta hib8CAd.png 02:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Group Picture[edit source]

Picture.png Old School RuneScape Wiki Group Photo! Picture.png
Hey there! On Saturday, May 11th 2019, several Old School RuneScape Wiki admins and editors will gather at World 330 Clan Wars arena at 22:00 UTC (2 hours before reset, 6PM EST) to take a group photo to use as a banner on the official Twitter account.

Bring your best FashionScape! If you plan to attend, let me know on my talk page. See you there!

--dDbvitC.png Scuzzy Beta hib8CAd.png 02:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Vote in the Weird Gloop elections![edit source]

Hi Cook Me Plox!

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

See meta:Weird Gloop elections/2019/Candidates for candidate presentations, and meta:Weird Gloop elections for how to vote – it'll take maybe 5 minutes.

There are 4 candidates for OSRS, 4 candidates for RuneScape, and 1 candidate for pt-RuneScape. If you'd like to influence who represents the voices of these communities inside the company, I strongly encourage you to vote! You are one of only 204 people that meet the requirements, and this is a chance to help shape the future of the wikis.

Thanks! ʞooɔ 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Money making guide edits[edit source]

I see. Over the last few weeks, I kept seeing big chunks of it getting removed without their own separate pages or significant improvement. Nonetheless, I've created and improved some sections based on research and personal experience. Before I remove something, I like replacing it with a better page of its own rather than just deleting and leaving a huge void. Over the years, I've created and worked very hard on that guide and this wiki and don't want to feel devalued and under-appreciated. I hope this helps. Cheers! Metallicanrana (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

help....[edit source]

Hello, I somehow got blocked from the osrs wiki site. I was wiping my laptop mouse pad and it moved the screen left and inch then I tried to look up something about minnows and it said I was blocked. Please fix this issue. I use this website daily. Thank you. 20:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Moisty mollusks[edit source]

Hi. Noticed on your private subpage /cat, there's a reference to 'Soggy Clam', I suspect this might be a player name left in inadvertently. If there ever was a tribe of clams roaming the sanddunes, somehow I think they would be extinct by now, unless they also invented the moisturizer. --The scribe Eek, a goblin! 06:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you want a free wiki t-shirt?[edit source]

Hi Cook Me Plox!

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

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

ʞooɔ 21:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: Do you want a free wiki t-shirt?[edit source]

Hi, Cook. I just submitted my info. I really appreciate it. Thank you a bunch! Metallicanrana (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm[edit source]

Lol Ozank (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Xeric's Resilence[edit source]

"Hi, can you explain why Xeric's Resilience is necessary to prevent dying from poison? My understanding is that because poison damage is queued at the time of the previous hit, Endless Endurance by itself (because it regens more frequently than the 18 seconds it takes for poison to queue) would be enough to prevent ever dying. It doesn't seem like Resilience is necessary to keep that true" Hi, I have no idea why the bug worked. It didn't make sense from a technicaly point of view. The bug was that if you were 2hp and meant to get 5 poison damage, it would hit you for 1 poison dmg. - that's as simple as it gets. You cant tick-regen the poison like you're suggesting - try it in the main game, eat a cabbage at 1hp poisoned, you'll still die. Endless endurance by itself did not contribute to this bug. It was pretty good for Lizardman Shamans (antipoisons were hard to come by). It would always leave you at 1 HP unless you had a hot/cold clue step or managed to keep your hp at 1 when the poison hit. Since like 0.5% of players picked Resilence, nobody knew the bug except those who choose it and got close to death. It was a really good option tbh, unlimited prayer, 50% less dmg, and cant die via poison.

Further more I've just noticed your wiki entry is actually missing some info. All poison damage was also halved (rounded down) from choosing Xeric's Resilence. This could be why the bug exists, but really i couldn't tell you. - I believe the bug happened after this update but I can't remember.

Al Zaba Bhasim is a figment of your diseased imagination.[edit source]

Go look for him yourself and waste your own time if you think he still exists. -Towelcat (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

RS:POLICIES license[edit source]

Per RuneScape talk:Policies, you corrected the license to Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0. Should it not be 3.0, per license footer and meta wiki? It formerly stated CC-BY-3.0. 10:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/13934832[edit source]

As a wiki advertising itself as an encyclopaedia on Main Page, this is inappropriate. Go write a strategy guide someplace else. 10:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent talk page edit[edit source]

Hello there Cook Me Plox. I noticed that you recently left a response on RuneScape Talk:About, but it was modulo about 10k bytes. This is very uncharacteristic of you, so I assume you just lacked the time to write a full response. As a courtesy, I have written a response that I think would be similar to what you would have used given the time. It is appended below this line. Feel free to copy and paste at your leisure, no citation required.

Abstract[edit source]

We must seek to understand what exactly is meant by reliable in the context of the Old School RuneScape Wiki (hereinafter referred to as "the wiki"). There are a few possibilities. It could mean 1) a very literal form of reliable, similar to infallible in that it means that nothing on the wiki is ever incorrect. It could also be 2) that it is merely a platitude meant to make the wiki sound more important than it really is. Or perhaps 3) a less literal meaning, one that conveys that the goal of the wiki is to generally be correct and to avoid maliciously containing false information, but may contain some vague claims or unknown falsehoods. While the real definition of reliable in this context could also fall in between these definitions or be orthogonal to these definitions -- or may even have a definition only truly understood by some cabal of wiki editors -- for simplicity I will stick to these three possibilities. In the next section, I will explain the implications of each definition in this context and how I feel they would affect the success of this request. After this, the likelihood of each definition will be analyzed, and finally, I will come to a conclusion that I feel might illuminate a path forward for this request.

Implications[edit source]

Definition 1 - In the case of the word reliable meaning infallible, the proposed suggestion should almost certainly pass. Clearly, the wiki is not infallible, as can be seen from this page, as well as many other instances of there being incorrect or unknown information on the wiki either currently (see here) or in the past (see links on this page). There are very few protections against random editors changing content to be incorrect or vague, thus there is nothing that the wiki itself can do to ensure reliability, as per the definition provided at the start of this section, in the future. Calling the wiki reliable then would clearly be irresponsible and should be removed. This seems, at least to me, to be fairly straightforward and clear.

Definition 2 - In the case of the word reliable simply being used to make the wiki seem more important than it really is, the proposed suggestion should again almost certainly pass. A paucity of well sourced information under the guise of being a source to be trusted surely hurts readers of the wiki as well as those editing it, as their claims may be refuted and reverted on the basis of being dubious or "sus" as seen here. It clearly follows that if incorrect assertions should be removed from the wiki and the claim of "reliability" is simply a ruse used to impart some undeserved authority upon the wiki, the claim should be removed.

Definition 3 - In the case of the word reliable meaning that the wiki strives for reliability in articles, but cannot necessarily guarantee it in all cases, it becomes nontrivial to determine the outcome of this suggestion. It is certainly not untrue, as vandalism and demonstrably false claims are removed as they are discovered and there exist some references to official sources (see here). At the same time, it is unclear how much information (from an information-theoretic perspective) such a claim actually conveys in this case though. Therefore it is hard to quantify the costs and benefits to readers of the inclusion of such a term. However, the inclusion of this term would perhaps mean that those wanting to contribute to the wiki think carefully about what they are adding. Erstwhile versions of some pages are of objectively lower quality (see here), and avoiding the creation of such pages in the future should be striven towards. The inclusion of original research also muddies the water, as these results may be concluded from gameplay, but are technically not substantiated by any sources. However, in some cases original research is correct while cited official sources are not (see rare drop table mechanics and If the word reliable is used as a symbol of what the wiki strives towards, this suggestion seems much less likely to pass, but a similar one asking for the inclusion of qualifiers might.

Analysis of likelihood[edit source]

While all three of these definitions are possible interpretations of the word reliable, I would argue that they are not all of equal weighting, especially given the context the word is found. I will start with definition 2 (see section Implications above), as I feel that this is the weakest possible definition that could be assigned and thus requires the least discussion.

Definition 2 - This appears to be by far the weakest of all the given definitions. While it may be possible that there is someone who is attempting to inflate the worth of the wiki in this manner, I do not think it is very compelling. Most users likely do not even read this line of text, and if they do, it is unlikely to change their opinion of the wiki if they perceive the wiki as untrustworthy through reading articles and attempting to utilize the information in game to negative results. This would make it a rather unlikely target for convincing readers.

Definition 1 - As this is a much more absolute stance on the information contained on the wiki, this would give the most information to readers (again from an information-theoretic point of view). Readers would understand that what they see on the wiki is to be believed, and surely that is at least partially the goal of the wiki. In my opinion, this makes this definition at least plausible, and perhaps even likely. The inclusion of the word reliable itself was clearly deliberate, and thus the contributors to the About page clearly believed that this was a useful word to add. However, I think that this becomes significantly less sustainable when you consider that by nature of the wiki, edits are made in increments as knowledge is accumulated. It appears unlikely to me that those contributing to the About page refused to acknowledge this and would not allow for something plausible but unconfirmed to be on the wiki at all.

Definition 3 - As this definition relates to the above mentioned nature of the wiki as being incremental steps towards correct and thorough descriptions of content, I believe that this is the most likely definition meant by reliable on the About page. Striving towards correct information is the end goal of the wiki, and the knowledge of content has to start somewhere. While very little may be understood or well described at first, as the problem space shrinks due to a combination of in game or original research and official sources, a more thorough page eventually emerges. To add to the statement that the wiki is not "yet" reliable, I would posit that the wiki will never truly be completely reliable as new content is added and old content is changed or subtly affected by newer additions to the game. As being unconditionally reliable seems to be unrealistic and unattainable, this definition seems like a much more down to Earth interpretation. There is also some evidence for this in the sentence fragment "the Old School RuneScape Wiki is dedicated to being a reliable source of knowledge on all things Old School RuneScape that anyone can edit" itself. The word "dedicated" here implies to me that ensuring accuracy is a continual effort, and it could be considered a qualifier to the much stronger assertion that "the old School RuneScape Wiki is a reliable source of knowledge".

Conclusions[edit source]

To me, the issue here appears to be around what is truly understood by the word reliable. While this could mean that claims should be sourced from official sources like Jagex Moderator tweets and official Old School RuneScape newsposts, it appears much likelier to me that it is instead a goal of the wiki as a whole to build reliability through the accumulation of various sources of information. I say it with confidence not because my word is law, but because I can promise you I've thought about it from more angles than anybody else. For a game like Old School RuneScape, original research is a reasonable route to determining observed mechanics in game. Even Jagex Moderator tweets and statements themselves are a form of original research in that it usually involves the moderator looking at the code and making inferences based on that. Both of these types of claims can be wrong, and it is important as a community for the wiki to come together to synthesize these sources of information (and perhaps create their own sources of data) in order to elucidate the actual mechanics. There are players of this game who are very dedicated to determining how content and mechanics works, and undermining that evidence based work with claims that original research is significantly less reliable than citations is preposterous. While research should be approached with healthy skepticism and should aim to be reproducible, this is no different to how Jagex Moderator claims should be handled. If original research (or a citation) is shown to be flawed, it should be removed as the wiki aims for reliability. Due to the likely usage of the word reliable to indicate that the eventual goal of the wiki is to achieve reliability for each piece of content allowing for intermediate stages of understanding, it seems a bit counterproductive to remove the word reliable in my opinion. Most readers should understand that something that can be edited by anyone is never going to be completely infallible, but is at least maintained by people who want to aim for that. Synthesizing original research and Jagex Moderator tweets where applicable helps not only to ensure the highest level of reliability that we can reasonably hope for, but also provides a better experience for readers who would either have to deal with incredibly limited information or evidence based original research. However, an MVP alternative to this suggestion could be to make this third definition clearer for those reading the about page. For example, the phrase "as close to a reliable source of knowledge as possible given the current information" could be substituted to create the phrase "the Old School RuneScape Wiki is dedicated to being as close to a reliable source of knowledge as possible given the current information on all things Old School RuneScape that anyone can edit". ~~~~

- Andmcadams (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Missed RfD archive?[edit source]

Hi Cook, I don't mean to bother you, but it seems like someone forgot to add my recent RfD RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Calculator:Magic/High alchemy to the archive page. I'm messaging you about it since you were the one to close the RfD. If I've messaged the wrong person or if I'm in mistake, then please tell me. I don't know if any other RfDs were missed for the RfD archive or if it was just this one. Thanks! - Xerxespersrex (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Cook. Best regards. - Xerxespersrex (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Miscellania[edit source]

Not sure why, I think it is just coal and hardwoods are off for some reason. My runelite do not have enough data for less profitable teak and flax, so might want to wait for a few more days worth of data to confirm. Maple, fish and herbs should be accruate. Gspbeetle (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Crowdsourced a bunch of player character names from 20th Anniversary event[edit source]

RS:Crowdsourcing says: If you have other ideas for OSRS data that could be crowdsourced (or just want to help parse what we have), join our Discord and talk to Cook#2222. I could assume that's you, in which case I could maybe contact you here.

It also says: We do not see your username, IP address, or any other personally identifying information. But I found a bunch of them from the Gnome Child NPC dialogue on Chisel toolserver (archived). Usually the plugin is pretty good at scrubbing usernames, but this time it didn't? 02:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Also people have apparently visited Felkrash to give their cat derogatory names, which have been recorded in the NPC list at the same place. Quality content. :) --Dandelion (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)