User talk:Bonefiver

Stanbury Village Page

I would like to thank you for your contribution to the wiki. It will be considered for its depth and veracity. Futhermore I should note that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery when considering your new posting style you adopted during your arguement with me. --Karlsbad 07:29, 28 June 2006 (BST)

That must be the nicest way to say "fuck you" without actually saying it. As for the flattery my posting style is still intact. If you actually read (which I doubt, at least in the level that you actually understand what I said) all my (emphasis on my, it is most likely Crossbows post taht you are referring to) comments you would see that the style is the same in them. In the high moderator and valued citizen tower of yours you can see this denial of your so called fact as flattery too, but I'm willing to risk it. Bonefiver 08:08, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Oh, your voice is still definately apparent Bonefiver, it is just that you now use the >br< tag alot more than you used to, and your more apt to emphasize your meanings with double apos and triple apos- it is moreso that you emulate my formating I geuss, because of course some wiki editors cannot be as stylish as others ;^).
You must also realize that your submission that I wished you ill in my original statement is almost directly apposed to your first response in how I was not considering all people equally. Almost as if you yourself realize that wiki-users take in the person who is speaking as much as the words as said. Must be important, don't you agree? --Karlsbad 08:23, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Yes. However the problem is that wiki newbies might actually have accurate information but the edits are first removed by elder wiki editors as vandalism because of opposing and perhaps uninformed views. This then results to personification of the edits and loss of the initial level of reputation that the new user should have (no reputation at all, either good or bad IMO) and subsequent easily justified deletions of valid contributions.
Mmm ... real life interrupted my thought there, but I have to agree on that stylish thing ;)Bonefiver 08:47, 28 June 2006 (BST)

That is an interesting problem, and I am sure that it would be corrected had it been actually happening. However the problem you are involved with is between an (older) group that dislikes the fact that RRF has the capiblity to claim a suburb because they are understood by all as being able to do so. I personally edited "n00bs" suburb reports when it was in the old Category Suburb's page, but that was because the reports were invalid; they only changed the level of the suburb without ever supplying a report itself. So yes, the idea exists, but it is more that non-n00bs make claims that are refuted by the largest and most respected group in the game and when observed by my alts to be correct. When n00bs claim things, we consider it. Its when a group as a whole claims something that it honestly can't it is when there are issues. --Karlsbad 09:01, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Take your problems to Arbitration instead of whining on that page and provoking an edit war. – Nubis ^NWO 16:40, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Hardly whining ... just stating a fact. Read the history. Bonefiver

Actually, it was. You're far from the first user to try and use that excuse. I recall one such, who was permabanned the other day... Cyberbob  Talk  16:55, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Was that a threat? Bonefiver

No. Just an example. That excuse was far from *that user*'s only transgression. Cyberbob  Talk  17:21, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Boney

Could you please use a timestamp when you sign? You can try reading the help pages if you don't know how. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 17:42, 11 June 2006 (BST)

No problem. I thought it's not necessary here. Bonefiver 17:48, 11 June 2006 (BST)

If it wasn't neccessary, no-one would do it. Cyberbob  Talk  17:49, 11 June 2006 (BST)

... meaning on my own page? Oh. I didn't realize that. Bonefiver 17:51, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Warning

Please do not vandalise this wiki. If you continue this behaviour, you may be banned from editing the wiki. Cyberbob  Talk  17:45, 11 June 2006 (BST)

A reminder for me: It was this edit: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&curid=1182&diff=286746&oldid=286699&rcid=290123 Bonefiver 17:49, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Thank you

Thanks, I respect you for saying that. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 14:45, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Last Warning before bannage

The warning is currently under review; that action you did is not something you are allowed to do; user pages are edited under user permission only, and I am only redacting my warning because Crossbow may give you retro-active permission to edit his page. Even so, you should not do so in the future and even if you keep the warning you should not complain- you did purposefully alter a user page without express author intent. --Karlsbad 09:06, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Verbal has been altered to actual; it is agreed that your actions prove to be worth admonishment. --Karlsbad 09:16, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Agree on that. However I have a question. What if the edit was discussed and approved by Crossbow outside of the scope of the moderators in question beforehand? Bonefiver 09:27, 28 June 2006 (BST)

It needs to be proven before it can have an impact on the decisionmaking process. Cyberbob  Talk  09:32, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Vandalism...hurrrr. Cyberbob  Talk  08:33, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Excuse me? What you are referring to? Bonefiver 08:50, 28 June 2006 (BST)

What do you think? THIS. Cyberbob  Talk  08:51, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Got me a warning, are you happy now? Bonefiver 08:54, 28 June 2006 (BST)

I couldn't care less either way. Cyberbob  Talk  08:55, 28 June 2006 (BST)

I think you do. I got you on that "generic you" thing on the res forums and you're now more than happy to ban me from the wiki with the assistance of your moderator buddies. Funny that you should grab my edit comment and make a fuss about it. Bonefiver 08:59, 28 June 2006 (BST)

I think I don't have a clue what a "generic you" thing is. Cyberbob  Talk  09:00, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Exactly. I can no longer access the forums for some obscure reasons, but it was about the virtual reproduction organ size. Bonefiver 09:02, 28 June 2006 (BST)

You know what? I don't know anything about that. I wasn't a mod on Rezzens then. Talk to Token Black Man. Cyberbob  Talk  09:05, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Denial all the way. I don't care about the ban at all and you should be fully aware what I'm talking about. Least you know that you were owned then. Bonefiver 09:08, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Let. Me. Be. Very. Clear. I. DON'T. HAVE. A. FUCKING. CLUE. WHAT. YOU'RE. TALKING. ABOUT. Cyberbob  Talk  09:09, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Whatever floats your boat and whatever sinks mine. Bonefiver 09:11, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Oh. Now I remember. So let me get this straight. You're holding a grudge over something that happened nearly a month ago? Cyberbob  Talk  09:12, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Not me. But whatever you say man, you're the mod not me. Bonefiver 09:13, 28 June 2006 (BST)

What? How can I hold a grudge about something that I've forgotten? You're the one who instantly recalled it, not me. Cyberbob  Talk  09:54, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Whatever you say. You're the credible one here obviously. Bonefiver 10:13, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Good to know that you can get something right. When compared to someone who has

• Vandalised someone's user page.
• Thinks that starting edit wars is the correct protocol for updating a suburb page.
• Gotten banned elsewhere for being extremely offensive.

then yes, I'd say I definitely have more credibility than them. Cyberbob  Talk  10:25, 28 June 2006 (BST)

• Your observation. Technically true though, but I don't think the user at question thinks that way.
• Your observation. Truthfullness should be the correct protocol. It's not. The powers that be have the final word.
• Also your observation. I believe I was banned as per request from you. Pot and a kettle if I remember correctly. You had more credibility and friends.

So yeah. You're the credible one because you got friends and you are vocal about my supposed flaws. I on the other hand get responses like dickhead, inbred shit etc. etc., but that's just my imagining because I have no credibility. Yeah. Whatever you say. Bonefiver 11:21, 28 June 2006 (BST)

So you do care about the banning! Ha! I almost wish I did ask for you to be banned - then I could take some of the credit. Cyberbob  Talk  11:38, 28 June 2006 (BST)

You do know, dickhead, that Cyberbob is nearly always patrolling the recent changes page, right? Because if he wasn't, he wouldn't spot most suspicious shit almost the moment it happens. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:20, 28 June 2006 (BST)

WTF?

Perhaps, it might be an idea to ASK ME before issuing a warning to someone who edited my user page? To be completely clear, Bonefiver is expressly permitted to make any changes to my user page that he damn well likes. I gave him my express permission, albeit off the wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crossbow (talk • contribs) .

First of all, sign your posts. Second of all, he never said that. Third of all, you should have made it HERE, where we could see and verify. It's nobody's fault but his own. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:03, 28 June 2006 (BST)

As regards signing, Ooops. And if he had of said that, would you have believed him? Or would have asked me at that point? Why not start by asking me? Crossbow 15:06, 28 June 2006 (BST)

It had to be verified first. For all we knew you could've been run over by a bus. Warning first, then it gets retracted upon supply of proof: it did look suspicious, after all. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:08, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Suspicious things deserve enquiry, yet this looks an awful lot like condemnation. Yes, if I hadn't responded, it would be worthy of a warning, but some of us don't have jobs with net access, so a delay of 20 mins between edit and reversion, and a mere 2 hours before warning didn't really give me much of an opportunity to comment. The only person in the preceding conversation who attempted to contact me (via any means, even a post on my discussion page could have settled this, with a little (less than 6 hours) patience), was bonefiver. He couldn't get hold of me, since at work I'm totally inncommunicado, but at least he tried. It's hardly his fault if he beleived (probably correctly) that an unsupported claim that he had my permission wouldn't be believed. Crossbow 02:20, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Just leave it, Xoid. Both of thse guys (Crossbow and Bonefiver) are just up for a fight. Don't give them the satisfaction. Cyberbob  Talk  08:18, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Pot and a kettle, pot and a kettle. Bonefiver 09:48, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Do you have a fascination with kitchen implements, or did you merely lack anything useful to add? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 11:05, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Speaking of pot and a kettle, if you don't have anything useful to add please go to someone elses talk page to spam with your inane comments like this and the one below. Bonefiver 13:46, 29 June 2006 (BST)

There are plenty of users who don't log in more than once a week. There are some who log in about once every two weeks. Should we wait that long, just to get an answer? Bear in mind that if you say "no" for that case, yet continue to insist that we should have waited for bonefiver's, that you are essentially asking us to guess the user's schedule, then decide whether they'll be back on soon enough.

Had bonefiver not been stumbling all over himself in his responses, I wouldn't have intervened. Two lessons here:

1. Want to let someone make changes to your page, ones that change the content or style beyond what it seems you originally intended? Give prior permission first. On the wiki.
2. Want your defense to be taken into consideration? Don't babble. Bonefiver's "defense" on M/VB made no sense.

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 11:05, 29 June 2006 (BST)

And where exactly did you seek the answer from? Should everyone who checks the wiki read the Vandal Banning page too to see if something conserns them? If my ramblings don't make sense to you maybe you should read the ramblings again. They make sense to just about everyone else besides you and the other moderator who has a vendetta on me. It might be my below average (...right...) English skills though ... Bonefiver 13:53, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Why do you give yourself too much credit? I. Don't. Have. A. Vendetta. Against. You. Believe me, there are plenty of others more deserving of my attention than you. But, of course, you don't believe me. That's okay too. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Cyberbob  Talk  14:02, 29 June 2006 (BST)