UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2011 06

This page is for the request of page protection within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to philosophical concerns, the ability to protect pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request a protection from the system operators. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here.

Guidelines for Protection Requests

All Protection Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered:

A link to the page in question. Preferably bolded for visibility.
A reason for protection. This should be short and to the point.
A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding ~~~~ to the end of your request.

Any protection request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.

Once the protection request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be reviewed by a member of the Sysop team, and action taken accordingly. Once action has been taken, the system operator will add a comment including a signed datestamp detailing his course of action, and the request will be moved into the Recent Actions queue, where it will remain for one week. After that week is up, it may be moved to the Archive. If the Protection has been granted, the system operator should place the tag {{protect}} on the page(s) that have been protected.

In the event of a system operator requesting a Protection, all the previous points will apply, excepting that a system operator other than the requestor shall review and take action on the request.

Protection Queue

S.O.S.‎

S.O.S.‎ I request protection of this page due to an edit war that I'm involved in. I started by removing (to the talk page) the whole signatures section, but now I'm only removing the extended, and abusive discussion that ensued, but Iscariot still insists on reverting -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:26 21 December 2008 (BST)

This is now subject to arbitration, let's see if Boxy ignores precedent and continues his contentious editing without discussion. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We've already been discussing it on the talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:29 21 December 2008 (BST)

You have now reverted twice whilst an arbitration case is open, who's displaying bad faith? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The people actually carrying on continued and abusive discussions on someones main page? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:46 21 December 2008 (BST)

Due to a section the page owners set up. If the owners decide to remove it, that's their prerogative, but you have no right to go around this wiki enforcing your opinion as to page content against to will of the owners. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You weren't even commenting on the subject of the page (which is the only thing you could have thought that section was for), only calling one of the other commenters a zerging scumfuck. Show some respect for people's pages, and take it to the talk page yourself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:57 21 December 2008 (BST)

I'm quite capable of making my case on Arbitration, perhaps you should as well to prevent filling up other admin pages. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected. All signatures removed beforehand... they were simply mocking the strike instead of supporting it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 02:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested Edits

Place protected pages requiring edits here.

Recent Actions

Some unprotected suggestions

List is done pending decision on Talk pages.

Phew. That should be all the If it's needed, I should be able to go through the other categories later and sort out the already-protected, from the unprotected, although it would be much more effective if a sysop did that.

Secondly, I would also request that a sysop starts to protect these once they have finished voting, to save having to do them in large chunks, like we do now.

Finally, these are a scheduled protection, since the page says I need a reason.

Sorry for the large list of links, thanks in advance :). Linkthewindow Talk 12:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget the talk pages of some of them. Linkthewindow Talk 12:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there are so many I started at the bottom and will put an @ symbol by the ones I have done until we can move them all to finished. That way there won't be any confusion (I hope).--– Nubis ^NWO 14:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few talk pages in there as well. Do they need protecting? If someone wants to put their two cents in later, they probably should be allowed to edit the talk pages -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:06 17 December 2008 (BST)

Should we really let people post on the talk page of a suggestion that went through voting? They can't change the outcome. I don't think anyone would keep that on their watch list after it gets decided. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the question should be "will it do any harm to let people edit the talk pages". (I've still got my suggestions watchlisted) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:14 17 December 2008 (BST)

I don't care either way. I see both sides, but does this mean we unprotect all suggestion talk pages or is this a "when you cycle" change we should post/vote/whatever.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's really only been a short discussion between three people, so I'll put it up on Cat. Suggestions and see what other users think. Linkthewindow Talk 14:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages arn't covered by the scheduled protections, so I haven't been protecting the few that I cycle. Are there many out there that are protected? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:23 17 December 2008 (BST)

I couldn't find many at all-but I've always assumed that as part of scheduled protections like this, a talk page is covered as well. I've posed the question here at Cat. Suggestions. Linkthewindow Talk 14:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I protected all the other ones. left the list here and the talk pages unprotected until concensus is reached. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Precedent says no and the vote wasn't for talk pages anywhoo. And, Linkthewindow, since you weren't around I'll bring back up a discussion I had with Akule about a year ago; Scheduled actions should not be requested here unless it's something like policies, suggestions would spam the page horribly because there is so many old ones that need doing. Please post to sysop talk pages, most of us will get them as soon as we see them there if asked(I definitely will), other than that suggestions are mostly only done when issues come up.--Karek^maps?! 01:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer Karek. Since Midianian and myself (mostly Midianian,) cycle the suggestions and keep the page updated, simply watchlisting that could allow you to protect most suggestions as they get cycled. Linkthewindow Talk 03:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Userspace

~~User talk:Iscariot/Clifford Spab~~

~~User talk:Iscariot/Doktor Iznotacarrot~~

~~User talk:Iscariot/Elliott Spenser~~

User talk:Iscariot/Damon Young

User talk:Iscariot/Cliff Spab

~~User talk:Iscariot/Cloister the Stupid~~

~~User talk:Iscariot/Damon Young/Culture Tour~~

User talk:Iscariot/New Server Ideas

User talk:Iscariot/New Server Ideas 2

They're all mine, my prerogative. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not protecting pages that don't exist.--x o x o 06:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes i know etc etc etc so yeah, don't give me the run down please :P --x o x o 06:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you create them i will protect them though.--x o x o 06:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-existent pages can't be protected, afaik (would be a handy ability to have). Perhaps a redirect to your main talk page would be an idea? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:53 19 December 2008 (BST)

I know I'm not a sysop, but don't you think now would be a good time to go and find out if non-existent pages can be protected? Just a thought....

Also, redirects go on any of them and you can go right ahead and settle in for your next round of drama. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a break from being a dickhead for a while, would ya. I know we can't protect them here, and no, I'm not going looking to see if there's a mod Kevan can install to do it. And I was suggesting the redirect as an option that you could take, heaven forbid that I touch a page of yours... I could be miscontribulated just for posting there (according to someone who doesn't understand wiki policy) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:33 19 December 2008 (BST)

We can't have people learning what they're doing now. That would be horrible. Anyway, yeah, we can't protect non-existant pages unless there's some work around I'm not seeing.--Karek^maps?! 07:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

These people seem to know. Odd how 30 seconds with Google supersedes the knowledge of the entire sysop team. Odd how they didn't think to do this themselves.... --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't have cascading protections or I would have done that.-Karek^maps?! 08:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I protected those pages that acually exist, and ~~struck~~ those that don't exist atm -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:54 19 December 2008 (BST)

SugVoteRules

The following closed suggestions still have the {{SugVoteRules}} template in them, which should have been removed when closing the suggestion.

I request it be removed from the suggestions. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

All cleaned up. --Daranz^{.t.mod janitor} 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Black Knights

I think it would be wise if we protected this page. It has a long history of vandalism, and attempts to take over the page. I suspect something similar has happened again, here. TheBlackKnight is a new account that is attempting to take over the page from Vidad12 or Keith 921, the actual owners.

Ordinarily the page would probably be crit 1 speedydeleted, but that's only likely to open it up to being recreated by the same person that's been griefing it for well over a year (persistent little bugger). The latest incident discussed here and here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:48 17 December 2008 (BST)

I must be missing something, why aren't we letting this page be crit 1-ed and then allowing this guy to recreate a group with the same name? The page itself quite clearly states the group has been disbanded, how does one grief a group that no longer exists?

Even if the old group come back after this guy has taken (rightly) their old namespace it's hardly going to take long, given the history, to move the new group into a bracketed namespace and leave the original namespace as a disambiguation page between the two. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't want it to actually create a group. He started out PKing this tiny group, and then vandalised their page repeatedly. Nothing but a vandal trying to be annoying, and I feel it would be better if he didn't get his way... but it's up to the other sysops to decide if I've got a case or not, eh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:28 17 December 2008 (BST)

After reading the talk page I say protect it. The real owners know that they can contact sysops to get changes made or unprotect it when they are ready.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Moderationnav

Anyone mind if i tweak the template as suggested in the link? I'll also sort those suggestion protections in about 3 hours.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about dumping them all on you sysops in one hit. I was bored :(. Linkthewindow Talk 13:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed it. more than willing to see it reverted if it causes problems. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration Guidelines

I just want this edit undoing. It's nonsensical within the English language to have this extra comma in the sentence. The fact the new comma adds a double interpretation to the clause and will allow for drama. The qualifier has always been 250 edits and and one month per de-escalation. The comma provides for the case being made that a de-escalation is 250 edits per de-escalation (so there could be more than one) provided a month has passed since the most recent escalation. Perhaps we should not be letting people who freely admit "I haz poor grammer skillz. Ye r warned." make edits to the critical English grammar structure of policies arbitrarily. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Zs L 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group

No discussion, I archived it. Please protect, as other archived policies.

Linkthewindow Talk 23:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Karek got the main page, the talk still needs protecting. Linkthewindow Talk 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He also got the talk page now. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Border-radius

Could someone undo hagnat's drive-by-editing? The reason as I explained it on his talk page is: "...text immediately inside the template (even inside <noinclude>s) is counted against the inclusion limits (ie. how much templates can be used on a page before the templates break). border-radius is a template that is included many times on many pages (even other templates). Any increase to the template page's size is bad.". --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [513,14]} 13:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to stir up any drama, but was there ever a decision on the content? I think it went to Arbies, but it fell off my radar. I'm going to roll it back to Karek's version and we can go from there. Ok? --– Nubis ^NWO 14:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the arbies wasn't the template itself, it was the pages the template is included on, and there wasn't any discussion about the content after the case. Also, Karek's "edit" there was just the protection of the template. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 14:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

^This. Also; this and this for those looking for more information on it. Our mediawiki version is outdated and still falls under what they are talking about in the second link.--Karek^maps?! 17:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Whitehouse

Kindly remove all content from the page as the template is now incorrect. - User:Whitehouse 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. If you don't like that I will change it. Do you just want the page unlocked? --– Nubis ^NWO 19:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, just leave it like that thanks. No need to unlock, else I might be tempted to add stuff. - User:Whitehouse 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Suburb Archives

Protect as other archive pages. Linkthewindow Talk 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A few more:

Linkthewindow Talk 00:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

2/3rds done. As a general rule of thumb we don't protect current archives if they aren't admin edit only.--Karek^maps?! 06:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okies. Thanks. Linkthewindow Talk 06:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Archived Bureaucrat Promotions

It's a scheduled protection, but I thought you needed some reminding :P.

-- Linkthewindow Talk 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this arby case. Linkthewindow Talk 22:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

All done (in theory, ive set protection to default settings and haven't protected the talk pages as they appear to be blank. correct?) --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They aren't protected-I could still edit if I wanted. Must be using the wrong button. Linkthewindow Talk 22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Foolishly i set protection level to default and not sysop only. currently being rectified. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected now :). Linkthewindow Talk 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Malton Uprising

I would like to place a request for the Malton Uprising to get a protective, magic seal. Also, it could be noted that Malton Uprising/Archive can be deleted. --Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||20:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected. You should file the archive on deletions though, i'm reluctant to delete it since you just blanked it and it has had other editors.--x o x o 05:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't crit 8 be used if it's a group leader that wants it killed? Linkthewindow Talk 05:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Rosslessness

Promotion discussion finished, archived. Needs protection.

Linkthewindow Talk 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dun. I moved the talk from promotions talk and protected that too.--x o x o 11:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:M/VB Intro

Could you change "This page, Vandal Banning, deals with breaches of official policy" to "This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy" on Template:M/VB Intro please? It's worth clarifying that we're not out to get people who made honest mistakes. --Toejam 11:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

~~But we are!~~ Got it. --Zs L 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

~~I knew it!~~ Thanks. :) --Toejam 10:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

we're not out to get people who made honest mistakes. - of course not, we have nothing against honestmistake parents. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Amnesty

Just been archived, as no real discussion since the 8th (except for SuicideAngle asking if it was dead, and me saying that I was archiving it.)

Please protect, as other dead policies.

-- Linkthewindow Talk 21:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Karek got the main page, but the talk page still needs protection. Linkthewindow Talk 12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Karek just got the talk page, too. --Zs L 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Navigation

Added a link to the UHUB under wiki information. -- C h e e s e 21:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Open Discussion/UHUB Discussion and it's talk page.

Discussion is closed as the UHUB has been created, and all discussion moved to talk page (manually, to preserve the edit history on the Open Discussions talk page.) I just archived it, so it just needs to be protected. Thanks.

Linkthewindow Talk 08:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:24 28 November 2008 (BST)

Main Page

Updated length of quarantine time. Happy 3 year anniversary, UD! --– Nubis ^NWO 13:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

4 months late, better than never.--x o x o 05:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Shambling_Seagulls

Hello! The Shambling Seagulls Shambling_Seagulls are back in the game after three years away. I appreciate that we're a historical group, but if possible I'd like to add in our current whereabouts and what we're doing. Thanks!

Strapon Bev _{This unsigned comment was added by Soddball at an unknown time. Linkthewindow Talk 06:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)}

Why not just request unprotection? (Oh, and remember to sign.) Linkthewindow Talk 06:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't see where to do that, so I thought I'd ask. Where do I do that? Soddball 08:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Right here will do. I see that the Shambling Seagulls are back on the stats page with 22 members, however, I'm afraid I can't find any links between you and the original Seagulls, Soddball. So I don't know that giving you back control of the historical page is wise (anyone could come in and claim abandoned group pages if we set such precedents). I'm believe that the way we handled the Paradox (2006)/Paradox case is the way to go here, giving you the Shambling Seagulls page, but only after moving the historical content to Shambling Seagulls (2006) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:50 21 November 2008 (BST)

I agree that we shouldn't give them the original page. If it is the same group there should be no problem with getting the page name back, but not the content. Historical pages are locked for a reason. After the problems with DARIS and DARIS 2.0 I almost wonder if we shouldn't let people have access to historical names at all.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's problematic, however it's also unfair to make returning groups change their name, because often they have nothing to do with nominating their groups for historical status -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:58 22 November 2008 (BST)

Hi Boxy. Thanks for your reply. What sort of proof would you like? I can point you to the run-in we had in October 2005 with the Creedy Defence Force. There were some very bad-tempered exchanges which are preserved here: Talk:October_Battle_of_Fort_Creedy

Probably the most important section:"Jaysus, woman, just how slow are you? My zombie character, Strapon Bev, is a member of the Seagulls. My signin here, as Soddball, is not. My human character, Soddball, is not a member of the Seagulls because he is a human. He is out hunting down stupid people in N Malton. My email address (soddball@hotmail.com) I've had for about 7 years. I use the username because it's unique." Soddball 13:08, November 21, 2008

OK, I'll move the historical page, and open up the original for you to edit. This case shows the importance of properly signing your posts on the wiki. If there had been a link to your user page in your signature, it would have been much more clearcut that it was your account that made those pro-seagull posts -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:58 22 November 2008 (BST)

User talk:A Helpful Little Gnome

Gnome protected it before demoting himself and I feel it should probably be unprotected (Why have a protected talk page; seems like a contradiction in terms to me) but I'm not sure what the precedent is here so I'm putting it here to get some input from the other Sysops.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like AHLG pulled a Grim. I think we leave it protected and if he comes back he can ask for it to be unprotected. He didn't ban his account, just demoted himself. Right? He must not have wanted to have to deal with any flak on his talk page.--– Nubis ^NWO 01:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he demoted himself. Linkthewindow Talk 05:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally would give it a few days to settle down, and then unprotect his talk page so that friends can leave a message. We don't want the bitching spilling over onto his talk page, and putting him off returning altogether (if there is any chance of that at all) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:03 20 November 2008 (BST)

One week sounds like a proper length of time.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it's agreed then. We don't want to drive him away permanently but a talk page which can't be edited in the long-term is rather pointless, a week should give a sufficient cooling-off period.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

*Snickers and does Mr. Burns' hand thing* Excellent. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 21:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If gnome wants his talk page protected (as he obviously does) he should be allows to have it protected. Finis did the same thing while he was gone for an extended period, i don't see why this should be any different.--x o x o 01:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We want Gnome back... Finis can go get... ahem. Besides, Finis' talk page was the target of constant vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:05 22 November 2008 (BST)

Yeah i want him back too, but i don't see how ignoring his wishes is the best way to go about it...and if you want me to get gnomes talk page the target of vandalism, well, let's just say i've got the contacts ;) --x o x o 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The inherent point of a talk page is for well, you know, talk :P! A permanently protected talk page is of a magnitude of usefulness only slightly greater than a chocolate teapot.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. now I miss Gnome, AND want a chocolate teapot...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 12:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected, see here and here.--x o x o 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunell Hills

In the middle of an edit war as well as being the subject of an arbitration case.

Request protection as per this edit as it is the reversion of this that is causing the drama. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on it. If it becomes a problem, I will protect it. Until then, it stays open. -- C h e e s e 23:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this issue already resolved on the talk page between the Dead and DHPD? If he wants to make a change to the page he should use Talk:Dunell Hills.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We solved it. This asshole doesn't talk for us. I support vandalism and shit, but I don't claim him as a goon.--

#99 ^DCC 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It was getting ridiculous, so I rolled back the idiocy, and protected it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:01 12 November 2008 (BST)

I've unprotected it again. I'll ask Iggles to leave it as is until the arbies case is finished. If it continues before then, it should be re-protected -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:03 14 November 2008 (BST)

These policies

Misconduct Changes and SysOps are Moderators. No talk-page action for half a month, so I archived them. A protection is needed, like all the other policies. Linkthewindow Talk 08:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My policy should also be protected. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,16]} 11:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bam! Done!--– Nubis ^NWO 14:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Sorting

Could someone do the equivalent of this to the above two cases, so they'll get sorted properly on Category:Arbitration_Cases? --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [512,10]} 12:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:45 10 November 2008 (BST)

Whitehouse

I just want my user page protected. - User:Whitehouse 21:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Southall Mansion

Unprotect please. Arbies case has been ruled on so yeah, consider issue sorted. --x o x o 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Blasto

Remove the category from this page, the stupy one.--x o x o 10:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Category removed. It was a stupy category anyway. --Zs L 18:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oct '08 A/SD & A/D

Page protected due to edit war. It will be unlocked tomorrow or something, when this shitstorm subsides. --Zs L 08:29, 24 October 2008 (BST)

You missed A/D, which is also coming under fire. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:30, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah you would probably want to get that before it comes under fire. Just a heads up.--CyberRead240 08:31, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Protect A/D with the stuff currently on A/SD on it as is wiki policy or i will A/M you.--x o x o 08:31, 24 October 2008 (BST)

LOL --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:32, 24 October 2008 (BST)

but srs :| --Nallan (Talk) 08:33, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I put the stuff from A/SD on A/D and protected it. Is the shortened version w/ the just the keeps fine? --Zs L 08:37, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Should be. The other stuff is kinda irrelevant. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:39, 24 October 2008 (BST)

How's it taste, bob? The ass I mean.--Nallan (Talk) 08:54, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Can't be as bad as all that bitterness. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:56, 24 October 2008 (BST)

What a brilliant idea(!) Block a community page so maintenance can't be done. Genius fucking idea. Request immediate unprotection for obvious reasons. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:56, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Is your need so pressing that you can't wait a few minutes for the request in question to be processed? Quitcher bitching. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:57, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah! What he said!--Nallan (Talk) 09:02, 24 October 2008 (BST)

STFU the lot of you. I'd have ruled you all persistent vandals and temp blocked you for an hour, allowing the community to use their own resources. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 09:03, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Cry some more. The last time a sysop tried to pull a block like that they got Misconduct'd. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:04, 24 October 2008 (BST)

After looking at A/D's talk page, I'll unprotect A/D so the community can resume voting on the articles up for deletion. I'll also unprotect A/SD too, but please don't put up any username redirects for deletion for a while. Alright? --Zs L 17:43, 24 October 2008 (BST)

More border-radius

This one unrelated to the template. I ask that you change the radii for the "Voting Rules" cell in Template:SugVoteBox, and the "Voting Rules" and "Today's Suggestions" cells in Template:SugVoteRules all to 6px. The current 12px is too big and doesn't work on Chrome or Safari. I assume this is because the cell itself is less than 24 pixels tall. Changing them to 6px fixed it (tried it in my sandbox), and 6px is also used for the inner radius in Template:Navigation. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 18:23, 22 October 2008 (BST)

Ok, Karek did this and the pages are now working properly so I'm moving this down. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:45, 23 October 2008 (BST)

border-radius

I request that the vendor specific -*-border-radius styles be replaced with {{border-radius}} in the following pages. Or alternatively, unprotect them temporarily so that I can do the editing.

If you know any other protected pages that have rounded edges, I ask you to also edit them. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:41, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Ok. I think I've done that right. Can you take a quick check and let me know if I need to sort any part? -- C h e e s e 19:48, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I should've been more specific about it. You were supposed to put the width as an argument to the template, as in {{border-radius|NNpx}}. And you were supposed to put only one if there were styles both for -moz- and -webkit-. Also, you missed at least one on Main Page. :P --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:54, 15 October 2008 (BST)

And you left the -moz- styles on Main Page. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:59, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Think I got it now. =p -- C h e e s e 20:05, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Looks like you did :). --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 20:09, 15 October 2008 (BST)

No Don't make me undo a bunch of edits because apparently know one knows anything about CSS and web-browsers. Although my guess is I'm late to the party and you've probably removed all the -moz- -webkit-s which made them work on safari/FF 2/1.--Karek^maps?! 05:14, 16 October 2008 (BST)

I've added the CSS3 support code but right now it's just taking up space as the only browsers worth mentioning that support CSS3 run webkit/mozilla. It's dead code until IE decides to support CSS3, which probably won't happen until CSS4 is almost done if you use their history as a guide.--Karek^maps?! 05:24, 16 October 2008 (BST)

Oh for fucks sake... did you even test it? The css code inside the template, which has both -moz- and -webkit- styles (among others), gets included straight into the style attribute, which on the client-side is exactly the same as having the separate -moz- and -webkit- styles there. To the browser, there is no difference what-so-ever. The whole point of the template is to get all of the different vendor-specific code in one call, and if some other browser comes up, only one template needs to be changed to get all of the elements that have rounded corners work on it. How about you learn about how wikis, browsers and css work before complaining to others? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:14, 16 October 2008 (BST)

Now, it seems like Karek just looked at the name of the template and assumed that it only contains the CSS3 border-radius property and acted without looking inside the template to see what it actually contains, which is: -moz-border-radius:{{{1}}}; -webkit-border-radius:{{{1}}}; -opera-border-radius:{{{1}}}; -o-border-radius:{{{1}}}; -khtml-border-radius:{{{1}}}; border-radius:{{{1}}};. I ask that you put the template calls back where Cheese put them as it supports more browsers than what Karek put there, not less as he claimed in his edit summary. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 18:12, 16 October 2008 (BST)

No, I looked at the fact it was a template call and would have removed it anyway. Don't make unneeded template calls it puts more stress on the server and limits inclusions. Not to mention you make the argument for why none of that extra junk is needed in the border radius template itself " Konqueror (and other KHTML-based browsers) and Opera (though only older versions as they seem to have removed support for it)." Konqueror doesn't even count for .5% of browsers used and according to you Opera doesn't even support your code.--Karek^maps?! 02:57, 17 October 2008 (BST)

So what if KHTML accounts only .5% of browsers? The game supports it so why shouldn't the wiki? Chrome and Safari account to less than 7%, so why don't we also dump the -webkit-s? Hell, 72% of the internet is browsed through IE so why don't we dump rounded corners altogether since IE doesn't support them? The couple of template calls this would add to a page are not going to be the ones that break it. If you want to complain about excess templates, go complain to those who use templated signatures. Templated sigs are orders of magnitude worse a problem than this. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 07:27, 17 October 2008 (BST)

The reason is that KHTML is also the browser set that has the most CSS3 support. It would be ridiculously redundant to have both exceptions when the likeliness of running into a user that has an outdated version of Konqueror is statistically nonexistant. And side point, IE hasn't had 72% market share since Netscape tanked years ago, Firefox has nearly 40% now. Safari and Chrome are far more significant as far as support goes because Webkit isn't browser exclusive has been a significant browser for at least a few years now. There is a point where you have to draw the line when it comes to code viability and this is roughly it, if you can find an opera code that doesn't seem to have been disabled purposely by the code devs then it should be added, but stop trying to have useless things added because you are touchy about your code being criticized.--Karek^maps?! 15:23, 17 October 2008 (BST)

Now, I wouldn't object to removing the Opera ones since I didn't know they were no longer supported when I first put them there. But no, you didn't even suggest that. If KHTML actually does support the CSS3 border-radius property (which it, to my knowledge, doesn't), I'd be happy to remove that too as most people who use it are the kind of people who stay up-to-date on software.

This isn't about my code being criticized. This is about the fact that this is the simplest and easiest way to include support for all of the browsers, in all the templates on the wiki that use round edges, now and in the future. As opposed to manually writing all of the vendor-specific code and updating each and every template individually if something changes in the future. This is about the fact that using {{border-radius}} is not going to add significantly to breaking pages, or the load of the server. As opposed to the hundreds of templated signatures on any page which is even remotely in the danger of breaking because of templates (and most templated signatures have many times the amount of code this template has). Look at Talk:Suggestions, which is pretty much the only page with the risk of breaking because of templates. It's got 12 suggestions on it right now, which is much less than half of what it needs before it breaks. There's currently about 80 template calls on that page. Then there's the suggestion navigation which uses rounded corners in two places. {{border-radius}} currently amounts to less than 3% of the page's template calls, and would amount to about 1% at the point where the page actually breaks. KHTML isn't the only thing that's "statistically nonexistant". --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:27, 17 October 2008 (BST)

Actually, I wouldn't even mind it being left off Main Page and Template:Navigation, as Main Page does get a considerable amount of traffic, and the {{border-radius}} calls would form about half of all the template calls from that page. It could very well have an effect on that page. However, Template:SugVoteBox and Template:SugVoteRules are only used on the suggestion pages which aren't that high-traffic, and they most often have a bunch of templated signatures on them which leaves the {{border-radius}} calls into a clear minority. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:51, 17 October 2008 (BST)

Threatening me with arbitration because you can't take the time to research your point to make a convincing and informed argument is just going to make me close this as served. You've gotten what you needed out of the requested edit, you're not getting your template call just because you convinced a sysop who doesn't know enough about the subject to know better. This is done, the request has been served, the discussion ended 5 indents up. You want a chance at getting your way find another user that agrees with you and knows enough to be a part of the discussion because I can assure you you won't be getting it through arbitration without that.--Karek^maps?! 19:05, 21 October 2008 (BST)

You're the one who's lacking in convincing arguments, resorting into pure speculation about my motivations. Which is why I suggested we take this to arbitration and let a third party decide whose arguments are more convincing. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:28, 21 October 2008 (BST)

Protections Scheduling Queue

Protection Scheduling requests should be requested in the same general format as Deletions. Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like deletion scheduling requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. Valid votes are:

Yea - Approval of Schedule Request
Nay - Disapproval of Schedule Request

Finished Arby Cases

With the new arbitration format, we'll need to protect the pages once the case is closed. Just so we can protect them if someone's forgot to put in a request for us to do so. -- C h e e s e

Yea - I'm not sure if this is covered by the archive thingy below since it's a new format. -- C h e e s e 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea - i was about to ask this kind of pages to be added to the protection schedule, lol --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:57, 31 March 2008 (BST)
Well thats been over a month and there have been no objections so I'll stick this as scheduled. -- C h e e s e 23:37, 7 May 2008 (BST)
When the hell did this go up and why would you not actually check to see that it is already scheduled before proposing it?--Karek^maps?! 05:37, 8 May 2008 (BST)
End of March...and where? -- C h e e s e 23:49, 13 May 2008 (BST)
See below --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:06, 14 May 2008 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Archivewhateva. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:29, 14 May 2008 (BST)