User talk:DanceDanceRevolution

edit User talk:DanceDanceRevolution Start a topic. Press: + Is it an emergency?  Email  Archives 2007 2008 2009 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2010 H1 H2 2011 Q1 Q2 H2 MORE 2012 2013 2014-2017

Obligatory

First. —Aichon— 13:00, 28 June 2010 (BST)

Technically I'm Third. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:01, 28 June 2010 (BST)

Gah new archives look like a game of Dr Mario. 14:46, 28 June 2010 (BST)

It's a work in progress atm. Looking to make the cells shorter and the template a bit more compact --

 

 

 

 

14:57, 28 June 2010 (BST)

I like it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:56, 28 June 2010 (BST)

A page without my sig! +1 --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:04, 28 June 2010 (BST)

that other place

Yip, now full time project and map 2 is a go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rosslessness (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

So you're part of the development team? How exciting. Might see a decent zombie game come out of it yet. Certainly looking promising in a contemporary way to UD. --

 

 

 

 

15:42, 29 June 2010 (BST)

AHMH3

I'm doing this as a double check on the number of contestants, so if you don't mind, please sign the list. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:43, 30 June 2010 (BST)

This Looks Like a Job for a Wiki Mentor!

DDR, can you help me use my snazzy new sig, please? --Natasha Fatale 23:36, 2 July 2010 (BST)

I can set your sig up for you. It'll take me about 5 minutes.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:13, 3 July 2010 (BST)

(Bright smile) Thank you much, Yonnua! How do we work this? I have a sig made here: http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/0/0b/Natasha_fatale_sig.png

Guess we should stop cluttering up DDR's talk page...--Natasha Fatale 00:46, 3 July 2010 (BST)

DW about that, looks like you've got some help, good luck! --

 

 

 

 

03:15, 3 July 2010 (BST)

GO!!

Let's get this party started! -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 23:25, 3 July 2010 (BST)

Those two votes

Are not incorrectly signed. They have the indent which I put on them still left on. The votes are signed perfectly.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:23, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Right, sorry, no idea what I'm talkign about. This one on the other hand looks awfully well signed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:26, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Right, now I see all the reasons I'm confused. Damn people editting each other's timestamps. Thanks!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:29, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Good point, Yonnua. DDR, please stop interfering in the democratic process. There is no rule against fixing somebody's signature when they have clearly attempted to do so. See {{unsigned}}. (Timestamps come from the History tab, noobs.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:32, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Revenant, those are not correctly signed, and, since it's a vote where it explicitly said they would be struck otherwise, there'll be no meddling with them.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:35, 5 July 2010 (BST)

No, you're impersonating, which done knowingly is vandalism. You keep it up? You'll be sent to vandal banning. If you want the votes so badly you have to get the users to come back onto the wiki and add the signature and timestamp themselves. You may not make the users timestamp for them, in all votes for the wiki votes/timestamps/sigs must be 100% the voters material, always has been and at the top it's no exception and states the criterea that a valid vote must be when placed which was breached no matter how much surgery you try and pull on the votes to fix them. And I know they come from the history tab. --

 

 

 

 

07:43, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Gotta agree with DDR and Yonn on this one. It's standard practice and it says it in plain language that explicitly lays out what'll happen if you fail to do it properly. That said, there's more to that rule than merely striking the vote, and on the one user I did check, neither of you two followed through on it. —Aichon— 07:52, 5 July 2010 (BST)

As far as I remember it said we should notify the users. I don't bother notifying meatpuppets. If it were you who screwed it up, I would notify you, not users who will only get the message when they're called back in a month. --

 

 

 

 

07:53, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I actually notified them both when I struck them the first time.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:57, 5 July 2010 (BST)

There are three that have been struck, and, ironically, the only one I checked was the one you didn't notify (I since saw your two notifications on my own). Regardless, DDR is correct, it says "should", not "must". —Aichon— 08:03, 5 July 2010 (BST)

The {{unsigned}} template does not constitute impersonation. Neither does fixing someone else's timestamp. The History confirms that the comment was theirs, I am providing correct attribution. lrn2copyrite kthx ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:31, 5 July 2010 (BST)

If you don't stop edit warring this, I'll be protecting the page until you've shown signs you can behave. Then we'll see who has the winning chance in you're petty election. God, I can't wait till you look back on this in a week and realise how retarded you're behaving. --

 

 

 

 

08:34, 5 July 2010 (BST)

O RLY? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 18:09, 5 July 2010 (BST)

This isn't about Revenant scrabbling for votes. I fail to see how correcting timestamps is an unreasonable thing to do; as Revenant pointed out, the comment with the correct time is clearly attributed to the original poster in the page history. Forgetting a piece of attribution that's stored elsewhere doesn't make the posters' intent any less obvious or valid. Could you explain the rationale for why this was unacceptable? ~ AphelionT 19:21, 5 July 2010 (BST)

It actually does make it less valid. Not by logic but just by the rules of keeping a clean boundary between properly made votes and otherwise. I was simply basing this off voting guidelines of policy discussion and suggestions voting. I could give you a history lesson explaining in a very logical manner exactly why I'm not even pursuing this anymore, so I don't really know why you're jumping in. --

 

 

 

 

00:54, 6 July 2010 (BST)

I brought it up because I don't understand the thought process behind your decision, and alluding vaguely to unspecified rules isn't very helpful. I see nothing wrong with fixing attributions as long as everything is correct and properly cited. I mean, yes, you should timestamp your votes, and if you do it wrong, people are under no obligation to count it--but if someone is inclined to correct it, where's the harm? Why does a "properly made" vote have more intrinsic value than one that was later corrected by someone else when both are equally clear and equally well cited? Since the issue is no longer relevant, I'm willing to drop it, but it just seems strange to me. ~ AphelionT 01:57, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Promotions

Regarding the current bids. Neither Grim or Revenant meet the criteria. It's mostly good ol spam. WOOT precedent? I didn't want to drag them to A/VB since I doubt they are aware of it. But why are the bids still on? I thought stuff likes this gets moved to the talk page, not archived as Ross apparently wants let alone be seriously considered. Yeah, I'm asking you. --Thadeous Oakley 18:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Well in the case of the Woot precedent, it was his third or fourth case before he was vandalbanned. These two have done it once. The general idea is if it happens multiple times, THEN it's vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:23, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I'm talking about vandalism, I already said they don't know about it. It's about their promotions not meeting criteria. --Thadeous Oakley 18:34, 5 July 2010 (BST)

"If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain level of give may be extended to other criteria."

I think that pretty much covers it for both of them don't you? --Honestmistake 19:02, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Pardon me, it took me a while to understand what is going on. By no means do I mind, once the circus dies down it can be archived early (or just left to die after a long time span). As far as I see they are just tarnishing reputations and behaving like jackasses out of butthurtery, if being remembered for this is their prerogative then I don't mind. --

 

 

 

 

Plus I don't really think this is vandalism anyway, it strongly resembles Misanthropy's stunt, and I'm willing to back it up that way. --

 

 

 

 

01:20, 6 July 2010 (BST)

fyi

still pissy about the amnesia stuff. seriously that is low even for you. xoxo. xoxo 03:28, 6 July 2010 (BST)

ps what happened to cybro?xoxo 03:49, 6 July 2010 (BST)