This page is an archive of my talk page, so please do not edit this page. If you want to refer to something here in a new message, just include a link to the appropriate section of this page (e.g., User talk:BobHammero/Archive#Other).

[edit] Nice things

If you want to thank or praise me, do it here

[edit] Hmmm

Funny, I was about to give you my award. The picture is already uploaded and everything. --Zaruthustra 06:41, 28 August 2006 (BST)

I'd still go for that. :D –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:43, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Oh snap! Apparently my template hates you. --Zaruthustra 07:07, 28 August 2006 (BST)

CONGRATUMALATIONS!!!111

Template:ZarAward Wear that sucker with pride. --Zaruthustra 07:13, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Haha, awesome. Thanks. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 04:41, 5 September 2006 (BST)

[edit] wowzerz u = r0xXoRz

Awesum templ8. Di dyou just get my e-mail from way back? haha. Awesums. I guess you can have your famle back. IF YOU CAN FIND THEM!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahah-That's Why I did your Wife 21:49, 2 August 2006 (BST)

But Banana Bear, I am not Rasher! –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:53, 2 August 2006 (BST)

No, I'm pretty sure you're Rasher. Haha. You're in quite the pickle now eh? -That's Why I did your Wife 23:53, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Omg how did u find out? Know what else. You are actually my account. I AM THE REAL DENZEL WASHINGTON HAHAHAHAHAHA! –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:01, 3 August 2006 (BST)

OMG!Psyching ftw-That's Why I did your Wife 00:06, 3 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks a bunch. Have a cookie. (These are going to become the next Barnstar!)

	A FREE COOKIE
	Darth Sensitive has given Bob Hammero a cookie for fixing Darth's major stupidity

--Darth Sensitive ^{Sith Lord•C•T•W!} 14:58, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Not a problem at all. Sorry I didn't see your email sooner. :) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:07, 1 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Template:PolicyVoting

Bob, You Rock! --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 20:09, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Thanks! :) Anything in particular you like about it? (It has yet to be used for policy votes, because it's too new.) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:11, 28 July 2006 (BST)

I just think you rock for putting time behind systems that will ease things down the road. A mods work often goes unsung and its little things like this that add up in the longrun. To be particular the rulebox will make it a lot more obvious for folks who stuble into policy voting from announcment links with no clue about what their contribution should entail. Thanks again. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 20:17, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Sometimes, with vandals running around, misconduct cases springing up, etc., it can be hard to keep on doing the work, but it's comments like yours that make it worthwhile. And thank you once again for your marvelous work with the suburb maps. I doubt you've heard any praise for it (aside from you, I certainly haven't), but I'll bet that there's more than one person who's thankful for those being there. :) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:23, 28 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] I think I like you

I found you by getting into the tactics discussion on paradox244's talk page. You seem to have quite the level head regarding UD. DHPD-SDC FmrPFCBob 23:28, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Thank you. I've been playing for a long while, so I've seen lots of things go up and down for each side. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:20, 24 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Objectivity

Nice work with that ruling. To be honest, I wasn't actually 100% sure of the applicability of the rule I referenced to the vote in question. Oh well. Just wanted to thank you for a good Arbitration. --Cyberbob ^{Sys U!} 08:27, 17 July 2006 (BST)

Hey, no problem. I'm glad you were okay with my work there. :) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:55, 17 July 2006 (BST)

There are a couple of niggles I have with the ruling... but certainly nothing major. They have more to do with its wording than the actual ruling. --Cyberbob ^{Sys U!} 20:31, 17 July 2006

[edit] Thanks for the heads up

Appreciate it. --Jon Pyre 19:39, 9 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Arbitration

• Thanks for taking on my arb case. Are you a mod yet? I keep thinking you are but last time you tricked me.-Banana Bear 21:10, 6 July 2006 (BST)
  • My pleasure, thanks for picking me. I'm writing up the ruling now. I'm not yet a mod, but I will be in a few days. Hooray! –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:12, 6 July 2006 (BST)
    • I don't want to sound like I'm trying to undermine you Mr. SoonToBeModCongratulationsYou, but on my account, you don't need to ban Proffffesor Legend X, as long as what I was hoping to get changed changes, I'm happy. I'm just not sure about banning over arbitration, ever since that whole, Brent bans Zar for not apologizing debacle. In the end its up to you though, and congrats again. -Banana Bear 21:56, 6 July 2006 (BST)
      • Hm, you're right about that debacle. Perhaps I should redact that. Thanks again, too. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 22:00, 6 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Template:Celebrating

I didn't see your template until a few hours after I made Template:Wikipendence. I really wasn't trying to one-up you with my template; I found it humorous that we both basically had the same idea. -- Rueful 21:27, 9 June 2006 (BST)

No problem. It's definitely cause for celebration. So is the GANKBUS really gone? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:38, 12 June 2006 (BST)

More or less. Idiots as big as Amazing come by once in a lifetime, I really don't think it's possible to find someone worthy of gassin' the bus back up for. -- Rueful 14:43, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Oh and when I say "big" regarding Amazing I am referring to both his idiocy and his girth. -- Rueful 14:49, 12 June 2006 (BST)

You could always team up with ASS. Or target Zod Rhombus for his crime against humanity. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:44, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Shite. They've got to be joking. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 17:21, 12 June 2006 (BST)

You would hope, but even if this is a joke, it still violates three different international conventions. Warning, Xoid may be full of shit. It actually violates 12 conventions. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 17:54, 12 June 2006 (BST)

...That fuckwit's taking credit for your wiki-drama template. Also, does anyone else find it powerfully ironic that the "Touched by the hand of AMAZING" image they've got shows his hand on a little boy? I mean, you'd think after the shitfit he threw over Scinfaxi's stuff he'd be a little more careful about something like that... --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 21:47, 12 June 2006 (BST)

He's taking credit? Where? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 02:45, 13 June 2006 (BST)

I presume that's what the big List o' Templates on that page is intended to do. I'm pretty sure every other one on there is an Amazing creation. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 03:32, 13 June 2006 (BST)

One was made by Toast Boy, another by Karlsbad. (The amazing fan club one. It actually isn't meant to be a pro amazing template — more a sarcastic jab at him.) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:03, 13 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Suggestion response

Thank You. I'm still learning how to do this. Incidentally, that suggestion is sort of broken. When clicking on edit, it sends me to edit Executions above. I don't know if its something wrong with my browser, or if somehow I broke the wiki. Zizanie13 20:55, 3 June 2006 (BST)

No problem. Feel free to ask me for help if you have any questions. I'm having the same problem on the suggestion page. I'll look it over and see if I can figure out what's going on. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:03, 3 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] RE:Your suggestion

I don't see it written anywhere in the link you gave me about Spam, however, I will not do it unless I need to from now on. And I didn't know about not doing it to kills either. Sorry Zizanie13

Don't worry about it. I don't personally have a problem with it, but I thought you should know, in case someone else brought it up. --Bob Hammero ^T•W!•U! 06:54, 29 May 2006 (BST)

[edit] Thank you card from the 'BUS

Thanks for reporting! / Delta flyer just got warned. / You fight the good fight. :-* Rueful 04:31, 8 May 2006 (BST)

It is my pleasure / CDF can suck ASS off / Proud to help GANKBUS --Bob Hammero _ASS 04:43, 8 May 2006 (BST)

[edit] LOLOL I M OOT OF DARFALL HEYTE!

Right now I'm riding a random murder train, but I think I might ride back to darvall. And on that day, we can be together again. I will not forget you, my sweet Bob.- Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear

I can't wait for that day! Come be with us now so your kills can fill our trophy list. --Bob Hammero _ASS 05:04, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Do kills from far away still get counted? what about kills of people I think are CDF but are really anti-CDF and then I feel dumb? -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear

If you join us, every kill you make gets counted. Plus you get to repeatedly point out how inept Amazing is. Also, you get to be fucking cool (not that you aren't already, but you get to be even MORE fucking cool). --Bob Hammero _ASS 05:08, 8 May 2006 (BST)

PS: don't feel dumb, sometimes we make mistakes too (I know, it's strange but true). --Bob Hammero _ASS 05:09, 8 May 2006 (BST)

[edit] Management issues

This is for serious issues related to moderation, arbitration, vandal banning, page deletions, and things of that nature. Use one of the subcategories below to discuss these issues

[edit] Moderation/Bureaucrat Bids

Discussion relating to bids for moderator and bureaucrat

[edit] Max Grivas

I have not yet established a gold in the basket policy but I hope we could work something out. --Max Grivas ^{JG,T,P!,Bob06!} 09:25, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Without doubt or hesitation. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 16:59, 30 August 2006 (BST)

	Gold in the Basket
	Max Grivas sees the basket as half full not half empty. He wants to fix it.

[edit] bureaucrat bid

You seen to have put yourself up for being a bureacrat. May I point out that kevan hasn't actually agreed to promote anyone yet.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:00, 30 July 2006 (BST)

You are entirely right, but I figure that since he wanted someone before, and that person has since left, he probably still wants someone in that role. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:01, 30 July 2006 (BST)

I'd say that it's a bit too soon after you've been made a moderator to run for it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:02, 30 July 2006 (BST)

You might be right, but I'm not going to back out just because of that. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:03, 30 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Cans

I'm curious about this edit. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 19:45, 25 July 2006 (BST)

Easy. My comment, at least, was on Matthew's top-level comment, and the other two looked as though they were, as well. I'm even pretty sure that mine was indented correctly to begin with. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:46, 25 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Promotion

djeez a bit eager are we... I didn't even have a change to get my morning coffee... well congrats and long live the new sysop.

Hip Hip Hurrah!--Vista 08:39, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Sorry... yeah, I was a bit eager. Thank you. :D Huzzah! –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:41, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Congratz Bob! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 08:42, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Thanks. :) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:34, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Hee! And I still remember the day I gave you that warning on Wikigate case :D Congratulations! --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 09:32, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Ah yeah, those were the good old days. ;) Thank you, and thanks for giving me a second chance! –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:34, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Well the good thing is that everything does ask for conformation. (and seeing that I learned to work with it it's all idiot proof as well). You've got protect and delete above as tabs, both work by going to the appropriate page, simply click and follow the instructions you get. if the page is already deleted or protected, you'll see that the button changes to undelete and unprotect. and un-deleting or protecting works the same. I'd say just use the sandbox page to try them out. It's purpose is to let people learn about wiki editing and etc. Learning how your sysop powers work qualifies under that as well, If somebody gives you troubles just blame me.

Banning users is equally simple, under special pages you'll see at the bottem a couple of new pages one of them lets you ban people. (Yep, it's the Block user page) You can also go the block user page via recent changes. (handy with vandals like the 3 Page Vandle) you'll get (It'll ask for a user name, it has a dropdown list with ban times and a optional time imput thingamabob (needed if you want to ban somebody for 2 days) and a imput thingamabob to say why the user is getting banned. You can practise that by rebanning an adbot for an infite amount of time if you want (it really is very simple, you'll get everything right first time). Good luck.--Vista 10:25, 11 July 2006 (BST)

OK, thanks again. I think I'll get the hang of it. :) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 15:46, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Like, who died and made you number one, hm? Congratulations, and all that. Now get out there and make us proud. Or something. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:55, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Sir, yessir! –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 15:46, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Just noticed your comment on Kevan's talk page. It's not that much of an improvement to the interface really, now is it? I actually had to go and add the 2 day block time to "block user" function. Jeeze. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:56, 11 July 2006 (BST)

How did you add it?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:18, 12 July 2006 (BST)

It's not tremendously different, but it's still nice. I was glad to hunt down some of the old images and so on... deletionist at heart, y'know. ;) Oh, and did you see? Looks like Uncyclopedia is allowing use of the ParserFunctions extension. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 15:59, 11 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Your Promotion

Hey, you could ask Vista to promote you, instead of "bothering" the all powerfull and ever lord of us all. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:54, 11 July 2006 (BST)

I did. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:55, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Oh, sorry. I don't have Vista's Talk Page on my watchlist =P. BTW i can't seem to come up with a way to archive my talk page that beat yours... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:59, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Well, yeah. Every part of every one of my pages is infinitely superior to every other page on the wiki combined. Everyone knows that. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:06, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Too bad the guy that made these wonders is such an... nevermind. =P --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 07:09, 11 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Moderation bid question

I won't vote on it as long as I have my own promotion bid running and I can't speak of other voters ofcourse so I can offer you no insight on how your new promotion bid will go. But most comments that questioned your suitabilaty were about the problems you had with amazing and the short duration of your time here. Since then you have had no significant promblem with other users, Amazing is no longer present on this wiki and you have spend more time here. I'd say that you have listened to the imput and addressed the problems enough to at least try again. Good luck if you decide to do it.--Vista 00:06, 25 June 2006 (BST)

Thank you for your advice. I will definitely be running again next month, so we'll see what happens then. Thanks again, and good luck to you on your Bureaucrat bid! –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:16, 25 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Re: Moderation

Might as well place my comment here :-) Yeah, I knew you applied for modship. I was going to vote for, but you pulled your bid before I managed to do that. So I think that kind of answers your question. And I see you have been busy with your contributions. There shouldn't be any problems, though the wiki population is rather unpredictable. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 22:14, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Alright, well that certainly makes me feel better. Thanks in advance, and here's hoping that the crazy wiki ocean doesn't throw me, come July. :-) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 22:21, 20 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Vandal Banning

For discussing vandalism, vandals, and vandal banning

[edit] 2nd Warning

Please do not remove people's votes on this wiki. If you continue this behaviour, your editing privileges will be revoked. This is your last warning. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:49, 29 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] My Warning

Excuse me? What? --^(user)(talk) 06:48, 27 August 2006 (BST)

Impersonation. Check M/VB. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:50, 27 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Codified Policies?

I've been following a lot of the Vandal Banning, Arbitration and Deletion proceedings to try to get a solid handle on what is allowable and what isn't. I've tried to be active where appropriate, and I've gotten some helpful information there, but I think that some of the issues would be simplified if someone began codifying the rules and policies and made a little pocket wiki full of precedent and law. I realize it's a daunting task, but it would simplify and accelerate rulings to be able to point to Rule 8, section 4 which states "No user shall...". Even a partial set of laws would be helpful, so any progress towards that end would be beneficial. I think it would be a good addition to the community, and vandals could be pointed in the right direction to ammend their behavior. It also would reduce some of the differences of opinion in some of the rulings, as a clear rule can't be disputed.
I picture us starting off with broad categories (each having a different wiki page) and then fill them in as moderators and higher ups see fit. This is all dependant on the assumption that such a system of law does not currently exist. What do you (and anyone else reading this) think? --Kiki Lottaboobs 14:57, 19 August 2006 (BST)

The more codified the rules, the less flexible we are in allowing good faith edits while actually punishing bad faith edits. Bad faith trumps everything except arb. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:46, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Well, certianly everything doesn't have to be codified, but it would give people a bechmark, and keep mods on the same page. For instance, a recent ruling was made where a ban was issued against a user who edited a group page he was not affiliated with and very recently, a mod ruled that a similar case was not vandalism. This leads me to believe that the rule isn't "Only users affiliated with a given group may edit that group's page" but something else, or something more complex. I don't propose that the law be a highly complicated structure, but without a skeleton rulings can be capricious, and will lack consistency. Xoid, do you think that perhaps even the broad strokes are a kind of Platonic ideal? --Kiki Lottaboobs 00:38, 20 August 2006 (BST)

The rule is this: any edit in bad faith is vandalism. There are innumerable moderator decisions, policy pages, arbitration rulings, unwritten rules, private agreements, convincing arguments, and all other manner of communications that make up the realm of Wiki Law. It's far broader and more nebulous than you would imagine — and that's a good thing. When you boil it all the way down, it's based partly on written rules, and partly on judgement, and that's exactly how it should be. I don't see any way to make a book of wiki rules, and I think such a thing would be extremely damaging. Which would you rather have: a moderator who is rigidly tied to a rule, and can never stray from it even in the most obvious cases, or a moderator who follows the rules, and is allowed to use his or her judgement in gray areas? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:06, 20 August 2006 (BST)

I see what your concern is, and I agree with you - having too strict rules would be a detriment. However, I think it is a positive step to take some steps to educate the wiki of some of the more broad concepts. If I could beg your indulgence, I'd like you to review what I put together in User:Kiki Lottaboobs/Sandbox and let me know what problems you see in it. It may well be that the laws and policies here are too effemeral to be written down, but I'm confident that something can be done. Give it an honest read, if you disagree, tell me why. Thanks. --Kiki Lottaboobs 01:22, 29 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Question about vandals

Hey, I can't figure out how to 'warn' vandals and mark them on the M/VB. Are only mods allowed to do that? Because I have just caught two moments of clear vandalism. --Luigi Galleani 14:48, 18 August 2006 (BST)

I'll field your question, since I'm online and Bob isn't :P

Anyway, you make a report on M/VB regarding the vandalism. Make sure to include diff comparison links of the edits in question. --Cyberbob ^{Sys U!} 14:53, 18 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] My second warning

I have to ask about this. Did you, or did you not read where this came from? --Gold Blade 21:36, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Please use level three headings at the top of subsections. Thanks. I read the vandalism report, and you obviously struck his vote when he provided a reason (he doesn't like that kind of idea). What more do I need to know? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:38, 3 August 2006 (BST)

So i could say that Spam is a valid vote on every one of his suggestions because I dont like the way its worded? It comes to about the same validity.--Gold Blade 21:41, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Lyk lol bob. u shood lyk giv him a braek. lyk lol vandals have lyk feelins 2 u no. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 21:44, 3 August 2006 (BST)

It comes down to my judgement that you struck his vote in bad faith. Unless you have evidence to convince me otherwise, my warning stands. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:45, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Why i struck it out: The way I interpreted the voting guidelines, Kill votes must tell why it was voted a such, what could use improvement and advising to revise the suggestion to better quality. Spam votes must show why the suggestion is unfixable, like the whole idea being broken. I decided that hating a suggestion because it falls into a certain category is not showing how the suggestion is unfixable. Not because the vote went against my idea. --Gold Blade 21:54, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Sorry. The rules state that a valid reason must be given, not that a particular kind of valid reason must be given. His reason — that he didn't like that kind of suggestion — is a valid one, so his vote was valid. If you don't like the current policies, you are free to start a discussion to change them. You'll find the rules to do that on the suggestions talk page. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 22:00, 3 August 2006 (BST)

This s a pertfect example of a good (by my definition) Spam vote by Gage himself.[1]--Gold Blade

That's great. My warning stands. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 22:06, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Dude, seriously, shut the fuck up. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 22:12, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Do you still feel that I purposefully did something i knew was wrong? --Gold Blade 23:37, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Did I not make myself clear before? Unless you have something substantive to add, please stop nagging me. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 23:42, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Bring him to Arby's. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 23:59, 3 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Ad Bots

Take a look at this : http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Listusers. I think the other moderators need to be told of how many adbots there are. Unless they already know. All the same, I thought it would be a good thing to inform a moderator of. Andrew McM ^W! 03:28, 3 August 2006 (BST)

I know, a lot ain't there? I believe that almost all of them have been banned on previous occasions. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:15, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Yeah, lots of them. Thanks. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:38, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Please do not create templates targeting a specific user this wiki. If you continue this behaviour, your editing privileges will be revoked. This is your last warning. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 02:05, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Retracted, as per M/VB. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:15, 3 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Kiki's Warning

I think you messed up the text of the warning on her talk page. She was busted for moving things on Vandal Banning, not suggestions, wasn't she? --Darth Sensitive ^{Sith Lord•C•T•W!} 06:12, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Oops. Yes, you're right. Thanks, going to fix now. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:15, 31 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Promotions page

Sorry for wiping part of the promotions page, it was an accident.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:04, 30 July 2006 (BST)

I know, hence my correcting it instead of actually reporting you. ;) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:05, 30 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] HELP!!!

I know I am supposed to talk to a Moderator for problems, right? well, a user named ImperialRedDragon has just deleted all the information under the pages "Revive points" "Building Types" and "Mobile Phone Mast" and isn't done yet! what should we do?!?!--Canuhearmenow 19:56, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Can you please try to put your headers in the right place in the future? Anyway, it looks like the problem is fixed now. In the future, what you should do is:

1. File a vandalism report on M/VB
2. Start reverting his edits. You do this by clicking on "history," clicking on the revision just before his, clicking "edit," and then clicking "save" (moderators have a button that they can click that does all of that, but that's the process you'll have to go through)

Thanks for letting me know about the idiot, anyway. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:16, 23 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Warning to Ron Burgundy

It's not a problem, man. You mods have a hard job and these things happen. Stay Classy!  :) --Ron Burgundy 08:47, 20 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] MrAushvitz

I think everyone will agree with you that he deserved that warning, but be more careful. As I see it, you reported AND warned him yourself, when the usual practice is that the same moderator can't place a report and serve justice himself except for vandal alts. The General got a misconduct case for that reason, correct me if I'm wrong. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 02:24, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Thank you, but technically moderators have that right, regardless of the fact that The General had a misconduct case filed against him. Read M/G. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 02:36, 18 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] 3pwv

Well, I can't beat your magic "revert" button. =( --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 06:37, 16 July 2006 (BST)

No, that is one of the satisfying things about being a mod. :) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:04, 16 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Miltown suburb page

BobHammero, I finally saw your warnings on the bottom of my talk page. Apparently there is no convention for adding posts--many people add posts to the top so that new messages are the first ones owners see. If I had seen your warning sooner I would have replied to it immediately.

Regarding my editing of the Miltown Current Events page (what you call my vandalism), we Doom Patrolers are getting tired of Coalition members acting like they own the page. When events happen, as when Coalition humans begin objectively working in close cooperation with their undead friends, we feel it is an event worthy of posting. We think that visitors to Miltown should be made aware of the character of those around them, when possible. Tagging events in Miltown, in which "Another Coalition Victory" shows up on the wall of an NT building the day it is ransacked by Coalition zeds, suspiciously hint that live Coalition members are handling spray cans for dead ones. Further, secure buildings with survivors in them in the middle of a pack of secure buildings suddenly fall to Coalition zeds shortly after known Coalition humans show up to monitor where the humans are. How coincidental is it that this same pattern--Coalition zeds picking JUST the right building while leaving surrounding buidings untouched--happens over and over again? Is it really so unreasonable under such circumstances to post these events on the Current Events page?

I admit that stripping the page was an act of utter frustration that resulted from Rayvern moving several DP posts that documented the insidious acts of Coalition humans. I counter his charge of vandalism with one of my own. Factual Current Events belong on the Current Events page, don't they? Or must all current events be originated and vetted by the Coalition?

Rayvern has stated that his reason for moving DP Current Events posts is because there are no facts to back up the claims made. But a similar statement could be made about most posts on most Current Events sections for all of Malton. For example, right here in Miltown, what lack of activity was there on 26.20 that suddenly made the Coalition's 27.00 frequency the defacto band? I tell you the only lack of activity happened when Coalition humans GK every generator in town! How's that for a Current Event? But I guarantee that if we posted such fact-based events on the page, ol' Rayvern would edit them right away. In this case, though, I changed the short-wave box to indicate that 26.20 is the band for Miltown and 27.00 is the Coalitions' frequency, but even THAT change was reverted! Check the wiki, would you! 26.20 has been the Miltown band since long before the Coalition assembled their shortwave bureau or whatever they call it. Why is it that even fact-based Current Events aren't good enough for the Miltown wiki when they put the Coalition in an honest but not complimentary light?

I guess what I would like clarification on is, exactly what rules govern what constitutes an authorized Current Event? If the standard is that all Current Events must be fact-based with 95% confidence, then I feel that standard should be adopted system wide. Of course, that would result in the majority of information on most wiki pages being deleted. So what is the standard? And why does Rayvern have god-mode turned on in the editing department?

One final point: after posting the first Current Event message associating the curious tags celebrating Coalition zed victories with Coalition humans, I explicitly requested that no editing happen without first consulting with us. Rayvern ignored that request and instead wrote that he edited after *notifying* us of his intentions. In international affairs, one country doesn't fire a missile over another's airspace then send a notification of the fact unless the aggressor wants to duke it out. The civilized approach is consultation about what one *intends* to do, not notification. That act was the last straw. It shifted the nature of our relationship in the direction of a warlike state. And for that, I get threats of banning? puleeease...

Q240z 18:40, July 13, 2006 (EST)

OK look. Your post is quite long, so I'm sorry if I missed something in it, but here's the gist. I don't know anything about your group, or your competition's group, so I really can't say what is factual and what is not, who did what, who did what in response, or whatever. And no, you don't have to have "proof" or "authority" to put information on a suburb page. But from my viewpoint, your edits looked like vandalism: removing and editing content, blanking the page, etc. If you can show me that the edits I warned you for were in good faith, then I would be willing to reconsider my warnings. As it is however, I think your edits were in bad faith. Whatever is happening in the game, I don't particularly care. This isn't the game, this is the wiki for the game, and bad-faith edits are considered vandalism. If you are having a legitimate dispute over "ownership" of the suburb page (no one person or group, by the way, can claim ownership of a suburb page), I suggest you take it to arbitration. There are many unbiased arbitrators there who can help you resolve the dispute. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:02, 14 July 2006 (BST)

I realise this may not be the correct place for this response, but the above essay does have a couple of points that leap out and beg for some kind of reply.

-Firstly....The only sections of posts that were moved were related to accusations against Coalition members - not actual events (It's worth noting that passing off false accusations as truth counts as Libel). In EVERY case the new location of each move was noted along side the reason for it's move - Nothing was deleted.

-Secondly, every group wants their frequency as the official one for the suburb. I have no issue with both being listed as suburb frequencies (unfortunately that particular change occured alongside some other strippings and it got lost in the reversion).

-Thirdly, Postings regarding Coalition GKing remain on the main page....why? Because I don't argue that point. It may put them in a bad light to some, but it's true.

-Fourthly, Each accusation has had a response on the discussion page. You just need to read them (I will admit that the discussion page is a little bit of a mess at the moment and it's not obvious what is in response to what, but I'm loath to start shifting everything about in case I lose something).

-Fifthly, requests to move new or repeated accusations to the discussion page were put up early and clearly, along with the reason why. Once the dispute is resolved a note can be added to the main events page stating that fact - but lets not fill up the first page visitors see with a dispute. You ignored this request for a tidy Miltown.

I'm hoping that whatever the DPers have twisted up can be untwisted so we can just get on with adding content to the Wiki, rather than hacking bits out of it with a blunt axe. (my apologies to bob for filling up even more of his page - I'll keep further posts on this subject on the Miltown discussion page) Rayvern 00:35, 14 July 2006 (BST)

It's strange that you post replies on your own page at the top, but warnings you post on the bottom of those you're threatening. The cheeky note was a nice touch, though.

And I apologize for imposing so much reading on you. I realize it's a burden for some.

But what, exactly, do you mean by good faith? Trying to improve the flow of information about current events in Miltown stikes me as a good faith effort, even if Ray and the clan don't like their dirty laundry being aired. Yet doing so results in Rayvern removing and otherwise editing (vandalizing?) our posts. When Rayvern demonstrated today his editorial god-mode regarding what constitutes Coalition-approved Current Events (we must have our case fully laid out, with exhibits and so forth), it inspired me to perform a good faith house cleaning of the page to make sure that the lofty Coalition standard is imposed on everyone fairly. Not only did that act get me a warning on the bottom of my page, but all of that "standardizing" work was reverted to boot! When I tried in good faith to make sure that the radio frequency information more correctly reflected the truth in Miltown, that got me warning #2 and AGAIN the truth was subverted. Yet Rayvern can remove fact-based posts from the main page without fear of reprisal just because he doesn't approve of the truthful content? Where's the good faith in that? Hell, your vandalism rule in this case every zed-loving spies' dream!

Bottom line: Rayvern instigated this problem, then whined to you when I responded in kind. Doom Patrolers don't think we own the main page and we have no interest in going to arbitration about it. I've already wasted enough time on this. But when we post events of the day, we expect them to remain. If our fact-based posts get edited by anybody but Doom Patrol members, we consider it vandalism and will respond in kind.

Q240z 21:03, July 13, 2006 (EST)

I'm going to say this only one time, and one time only. Notice how you deleted a bunch of shit off of my talk page? That's vandalism. That's in bad faith. You don't have the right to remove content off of my page. I frankly don't care if you were "cleaning up" the wiki; your edits violate our policies, and so, you were vandalizing. I don't care about who did what to whom in the game. This isn't the game. This is the wiki. If you have a legitimate complaint about the way that page is being managed, take it to arbitration. But you do not endear me by vandalizing my page as well. Unless you have some substantive proof, with links, to show me that you didn't deserve your vandalism warnings, I'm done with this issue. You can take it to Arbitration, or if you think your foes have committed vandalism, Vandal Banning, but I'm tired of your hyperbole. As for where I post replies, I have established specific guidelines for my talk page. For yours, a standard, run-of-the-mill talk page without established guidelines, I used the default assumption: new heading at the bottom. If you have a legitimate complaint, make it. If you're here to whine, get out. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 02:42, 14 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Miltown

Hi. I'm concerned about whether my own editing practices on the Miltown wiki page are appropriate. Q240z has repeated his earlier stripping of the page (though not to the same extent as before) and, while I do feel strongly about shifting some things to the discussion page, I don't want to get involved in any reverting of pages as I don't feel that would be appropriate. Can you offer any advice as to how I should proceed with this continuing issue? Rayvern 20:00, 13 July 2006 (BST)

As far as I can tell, your conduct is fine. Q240z's conduct, however, strongly resembles vandalism. You should revert any vandalism-like changes that he has made, and report him to Vandal Banning. I warned him once for his changes, and submitted a report on later ones (I don't think I'm able to warn him and report him for the same offenses). –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:10, 13 July 2006 (BST)

Thanks. I have reverted the page and put in another report at Vandal Banning. Apologies for the incorrect placing of my original post. --Rayvern

Not a big deal. If he keeps it up, just report him again and we'll take care of it. Actually, he should be banned for 24 hours when the next mod deals with my report on him. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:25, 13 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Arsehole

"Addendum: perhaps another reason to upgrade to the latest version of MediaWiki? I wonder if that bug has been fixed. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 03:58, 10 July 2006 (BST)"

It's a fundamental flaw in the program. Unless they have gone and rewritten some of the major components while I wasn't looking, and never bothered upping the version number, then this is still there, even in the latest version. Hell, I had the same problem in 1.6.x and 1.7.x, so I'm certain that it will be at least 1.8.x before it gets nailed. Don't be so distrusting. He may have gone and acted like a douche, but there is no reason to ignore Grim s' own hard-learnt experience with the vagaries of MediaWiki. (By issuing a second M/VB report saying that you don't buy it.) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:03, 10 July 2006 (BST)

Was I a little on edge? Yeah.