User talk:Honestmistake
Because its more fun that way
|
Supporter of No Tactics |
| I have no clue what I'm doing. |
ressurect Zombie girls are easy? hell, yeah!
I have a newbie alt soon to be in need of a home... And that's the perfect group for him, too! ;P I'm very interested in getting in touch with the old members and ressurecting it. Also, I want to keep the general chaos and mayhem philosophy they outline on their wiki. Including no restrictions on PKing... Also, you should join my new zombiesexdvoodoodeathcult, XIII! Everyone should join!! We've been having a lot of lolz with it so far... going to post some new exploits to the wiki soon. Anyhooo... Cheers! --WanYao 02:18, 4 July 2008 (BST)
- who the hell is ben? is he a rat? ratz iz kuhl!!! --WanYao 00:55, 5 July 2008 (BST)
- goodness me, you must learn and follow the cult's tenets. already you blaspheme! playing our particular interpretation of Dual Nature, members of XIII don't actively seek revives... that being said, shamble up to dagobah, erm, yagoton... and join the forum... when the team is together, uncanny things can happen! ;) --WanYao 14:58, 7 July 2008 (BST)
Just wondering if you still have an alt with the zgae tag... --WanYao 12:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The "Red" Box Rule
If you don't like it don't play Cyberbob's little troll game and stop complaining about it. Come up with a better way to state something that shows it isn't a rule. The box is meant to be a guideline, it's meant to say the exact same thing that is enforced everywhere else on the wiki, specifically, Don't spam the page, keep on point, and don't comment if it isn't relevant. As such that box is not an extension of anyones ability to do anything, nor is it meant to be. If you can think of a better way to word it that makes that clearer I will more than willingly change it to that. However, complaining about it being a means to punishing users, when only one user, in my memory, has ever been punished for something even slightly related to that doesn't help anyone and doesn't get anything done. --Karekmaps?! 03:14, 27 April 2008 (BST)
- It may have only been used once to back up punishment but that was one more time that than it should have been used. It is also frequently used to stifle debate/opinions and that is out of order. Don't say that doesn't happen because Grim did it to me on more than one occasion and the current system gets used or ignored depending more on the users involved than the content of comment. Last time I brought this up I was told to drop it because no one else agreed with me that it was a problem, it is and others seem to agree (even if the most vocal is mostly using it as a way to troll)--Honestmistake 13:12, 27 April 2008 (BST)
- Without you linking said occasions I can't help but assume you are furthering your dislike of Grim. It's not used in the manner you say it is, show that I'm wrong if that's really the case or stop making accusations to the contrary, because they won't be taken seriously. The burden of proof, as always, is on the accuser(That's you).--Karekmaps?! 03:51, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- I am not furthering any dislike of Grim. I actually miss the crotchety old bugger and despite disagreeing with him on a good many things I also had a lot of respect for him. As for trawling through A/VB looking for examples... you have got to be kidding, that I remember is good enough for me and that I can illustrate how easy it is to abuse should be enough for you.--Honestmistake 09:03, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Without you linking said occasions I can't help but assume you are furthering your dislike of Grim. It's not used in the manner you say it is, show that I'm wrong if that's really the case or stop making accusations to the contrary, because they won't be taken seriously. The burden of proof, as always, is on the accuser(That's you).--Karekmaps?! 03:51, 28 April 2008 (BST)
Try this case though, yes despite what I just said this is a Grim case but it is the last one that directly involved me and co-incidentally Cyberbob which is why it was easy to find. There is a thread on Bob's talk page regarding this too if you want to look.--Honestmistake 09:09, 28 April 2008 (BST) http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2007_12#Grim_s_2
- What does that sham of a case(I've always seen that case as an example of abuse of both Arbitration and A/VB) have to do with the red notice? Unless you mean the fact that content got moved from the main, which was already extremely messy, and, if that was what you meant, please, read over that content that got moved a few dozen times. There's one hell of a lot of crap that had nothing to do with the case at all there, some of it, like yours even, quoted below, are little more than personal insults of one of the involved users.
| Honestmistake said: |
| Grim, breaking the spirit or the word of the ruling matters squat. You did this to prove your own (imaginary) superiority and in the full and certain knowledge that it would cause drama, if that isn't the very definition of a "bad faith" edit then what is? Bad faith = vandalism... You have well and truly overstepped the mark this time. |
- Aside from that I don't see what justification you have for claiming that that is an example of abuse. Nor do I understand this view that the discussion being on the Talk page while the relevant rulings remain clear and visible on the main page makes them any harder to find or less impactful{(?), I frequently use the Talk page in such a manner and have, in the past, gotten SysOps to review their ruling. That case is an example of that if memory serves(although in truth I was not the one responsible for most, if any, of the changing of rulings involved in that case) and the current case in A/VB, DoohickyBones, Killbottom, and Kid Sinister is another one.--Karekmaps?! 09:27, 28 April 2008 (BST)
It was "abuse" in the sense that pretty much the whole case had descended into chaos and should all have been on the talk page. Instead Grim left many comments that he made intact while moving relevant argument off the page (often losing context and impact or even semblance of comprehensibility) Simply put, all discusion should be on the talk page or all discusion should be on the main page. We should not have 2 rules for such things... as soon as it is evident that a case is sparking controversy and debate all such should be kept together to keep things coherent. Allowing one group of users to decide which comments are relevant is counter-productive... allowing them to arbitrarily leave views that they agree with but move those they don't is always going to cause more drama. Ask yourself this, how many times has a disagreement between sysops on handling a case led to insults and discussion on the main page that should (and if not for that red box) would be moved to the talk? If your answer is zero then you obviously don't read the same page as me... if its 1 or more then you can surely see what i am getting at with this line of argument? As for how this got started.... It was the implicit threat to use that guideline to prove bad faith. Thats a different case but again not one i fancy wading through archives to prove.--Honestmistake 09:51, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- I know of a few, I also know that after the discussion has ceased being active(i.e. users updating it every few minutes) it usually gets moved to the talk page. I've done it myself at least once in the recent(relative) past. I should probably also point out that I don't think Grim was the one that did most of the moving in that discussion.--Karekmaps?! 09:56, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- That was possibly my being lazy in citing that case.... I remember it specifically only because Grim had pulled a similar stunt on me very recently and I spotted him do something similar to Bob in that discussion. The thread on Bobs page about Grims Joke is how I knew what time/date to look for. Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying that this is all part of a big mod conspiracy to silence/cow the rest of us, only that it can and has been abused and there is no reason why it should be allowed to be used in any fashion other than to keep the main page clean. All that should really be there is Report; Evidence; Ruling. Anything more (including an explaination if the sysop involved feels he need make one) should be on the talk page. Done that way the page would be kept spam free and there would be no possibility of the red box being used as grounds for warnings/bans and no way that relevant comments could be brushed aside by overzealous sysops trying to avoid things getting messy.--Honestmistake 10:10, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Ok, I'll never be able to agree with that. That's you taking it to a bit of an absurd extreme and attempting to prevent drama by actually removing the usefulness of the page. If the SysOp can't explain the ruling when they make it there's no point in having the page at all. It's there to document the reasons why an edit may or may not be vandalism and to request review on said edit. What you suggest is A/VD which is to note when action has been taken.--Karekmaps?! 10:26, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- I sould have made that a lot clearer (in work, keep getting disturbed). What i mean by those 3 sections is: Report. including the links to the vandalism you are reporting. Evidence. any links to similar cases to support the current case (ie user X posts "just spotted these too .....") that another user wishes to add. Brief factual statements should be allowed to support these. Ruling. Sysops decision as to vandalism or not with the usual short statement explaining why (ie "only 3 edits, all bad!" or "Newb mistake, explained on his/her talk page") Anything more controversial that a sysop judges likely to draw comment should be explained on the talk page so that the following shit storm can be seen in full context. Similarly if another sysop comes along and strongly disagrees with the ruling a simple note of their opinion should be all that goes on the page until the following shitstorm is resolved. Its all very well saying sysops and the directly involved only, but when the resulting precedent of any given case could affect every other user then we are by definition involved. Remember too that many of us who are not sysops have been here for a long time and are not totally without a clue, most A/VB cases are straight forwards but with the growing tendency to cry Vandal as a way to pursue vendetta's it is inevitable that more and more controversial cases will pop up and the outcome will affect a wide circle of folks not directly involved in the initial case! --Honestmistake 10:48, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- That's kinda funny actually, I recently had a debate with another user outside of the wiki of the difference between when precedent does and does not matter. Not every case is a "global" issue. Most aren't. Cases should be treated based on each cases individual merits, same with all content on the wiki and it's placement. This is why we can't have something like that cemented in policy and why it works best in its current state, as an unenforceable notice that the comments will be removed. Sometimes users have something to contribute to a case in the form of evidence or commentary on a bit of evidence that relates directly but seems to have been missed. Most of the time they don't. That is the stuff that should be moved off of the page, it's the stuff that usually is. Discussion about peoples opinions on the handling of the case meets under that category, much like discussion on news items on Suburbs pages does. It's talk, it goes on the talk page. It's really that simple.--Karekmaps?! 10:56, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Sadly its only that simple in theory.... It happens the way I put it far too often. Of course my preferred methods for dealing with such wouldn't work any better in the real world either because too many people are assholes --Honestmistake 11:05, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Not you by the way.... was thinking more about Bob's recent behaviour, not to mention far too many of those involve in the Dead's cases!--Honestmistake 11:06, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Well gee Honest, it's a bit hypocritical of you to be calling an arsehole for standing up in what I believe in when you've attempted to raise so many shitstorms I'm surprised your user page isn't permanently brown. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:35, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Bob all you seem to do these days is fling insults and troll every page you post on. I would say you have a point in this case but I am not sure what it is you want done? I don't like the current system, as I said its too open to abuse or even just accusations of abuse. That said it does (mostly) work and what I want is a sensible discussion about how to make it better, what you seem to want is to start a fight with someone/anyone. I am not going to fight with you as frankly i just can't be arsed.--Honestmistake 17:25, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- You're taking my behaviour elsewhere and tarring my behaviour in these matters with the same brush despite the blatantly obvious differences between the two. Please don't. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:14, 29 April 2008 (BST)
- I hope you are being serious for once on this issue as you used to be a good (if abrasive) contributor to this wiki. Hell I even vouched for you last time you stood as sysop if you remember? Sadly since then your behaviour has been awful and i am pretty sure I remember you commenting that these days you have better things to do (Nexus War?) and only come here to piss folks off! Anyway you have said it yourself more than once that you often act like an Ass so you can't blame me for agreeing with you ;) In any case I think you are trying to be constructive on this issue but are going about it in a deliberately confrontational manner which doesn't seem to be winning any hearts and minds. This is a matter that I personally feel would benefit from serious discussion but as usual it is turning (has turned) bitter making us all look like monkeys flinging shit at one another instead of people trying to work out a good balance between the principles of free editing and spam avoidance/drama mongering!--Honestmistake 10:37, 29 April 2008 (BST)
- You're taking my behaviour elsewhere and tarring my behaviour in these matters with the same brush despite the blatantly obvious differences between the two. Please don't. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:14, 29 April 2008 (BST)
- Wait wut? That's a bit strange. Out of character even.--Karekmaps?! 13:46, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Bob all you seem to do these days is fling insults and troll every page you post on. I would say you have a point in this case but I am not sure what it is you want done? I don't like the current system, as I said its too open to abuse or even just accusations of abuse. That said it does (mostly) work and what I want is a sensible discussion about how to make it better, what you seem to want is to start a fight with someone/anyone. I am not going to fight with you as frankly i just can't be arsed.--Honestmistake 17:25, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- I think it's more of a matter of putting trust/trusted users back in a position meant for trusted users. But that's a bit of a different debate thingy. --Karekmaps?! 11:13, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Well gee Honest, it's a bit hypocritical of you to be calling an arsehole for standing up in what I believe in when you've attempted to raise so many shitstorms I'm surprised your user page isn't permanently brown. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:35, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Not you by the way.... was thinking more about Bob's recent behaviour, not to mention far too many of those involve in the Dead's cases!--Honestmistake 11:06, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Sadly its only that simple in theory.... It happens the way I put it far too often. Of course my preferred methods for dealing with such wouldn't work any better in the real world either because too many people are assholes --Honestmistake 11:05, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- That's kinda funny actually, I recently had a debate with another user outside of the wiki of the difference between when precedent does and does not matter. Not every case is a "global" issue. Most aren't. Cases should be treated based on each cases individual merits, same with all content on the wiki and it's placement. This is why we can't have something like that cemented in policy and why it works best in its current state, as an unenforceable notice that the comments will be removed. Sometimes users have something to contribute to a case in the form of evidence or commentary on a bit of evidence that relates directly but seems to have been missed. Most of the time they don't. That is the stuff that should be moved off of the page, it's the stuff that usually is. Discussion about peoples opinions on the handling of the case meets under that category, much like discussion on news items on Suburbs pages does. It's talk, it goes on the talk page. It's really that simple.--Karekmaps?! 10:56, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- I sould have made that a lot clearer (in work, keep getting disturbed). What i mean by those 3 sections is: Report. including the links to the vandalism you are reporting. Evidence. any links to similar cases to support the current case (ie user X posts "just spotted these too .....") that another user wishes to add. Brief factual statements should be allowed to support these. Ruling. Sysops decision as to vandalism or not with the usual short statement explaining why (ie "only 3 edits, all bad!" or "Newb mistake, explained on his/her talk page") Anything more controversial that a sysop judges likely to draw comment should be explained on the talk page so that the following shit storm can be seen in full context. Similarly if another sysop comes along and strongly disagrees with the ruling a simple note of their opinion should be all that goes on the page until the following shitstorm is resolved. Its all very well saying sysops and the directly involved only, but when the resulting precedent of any given case could affect every other user then we are by definition involved. Remember too that many of us who are not sysops have been here for a long time and are not totally without a clue, most A/VB cases are straight forwards but with the growing tendency to cry Vandal as a way to pursue vendetta's it is inevitable that more and more controversial cases will pop up and the outcome will affect a wide circle of folks not directly involved in the initial case! --Honestmistake 10:48, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Ok, I'll never be able to agree with that. That's you taking it to a bit of an absurd extreme and attempting to prevent drama by actually removing the usefulness of the page. If the SysOp can't explain the ruling when they make it there's no point in having the page at all. It's there to document the reasons why an edit may or may not be vandalism and to request review on said edit. What you suggest is A/VD which is to note when action has been taken.--Karekmaps?! 10:26, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- That was possibly my being lazy in citing that case.... I remember it specifically only because Grim had pulled a similar stunt on me very recently and I spotted him do something similar to Bob in that discussion. The thread on Bobs page about Grims Joke is how I knew what time/date to look for. Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying that this is all part of a big mod conspiracy to silence/cow the rest of us, only that it can and has been abused and there is no reason why it should be allowed to be used in any fashion other than to keep the main page clean. All that should really be there is Report; Evidence; Ruling. Anything more (including an explaination if the sysop involved feels he need make one) should be on the talk page. Done that way the page would be kept spam free and there would be no possibility of the red box being used as grounds for warnings/bans and no way that relevant comments could be brushed aside by overzealous sysops trying to avoid things getting messy.--Honestmistake 10:10, 28 April 2008 (BST)
Feral Frenzy
Peer Rejected but with a lot of support! http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20080221_Feral_Frenzy
Templates
Just copy the code of the template into your userpage. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it has a #If or #switch type code in it, or anything like that, contact me on my talk page and I'll see what I can do.--Karekmaps?! 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer of help guys, much appreciated. tried to copy/paste that doesn't work though and I suspect that i need to access the "edit" page to get the actual code. Sadly I am at work and some asshat has had us all banned from wikipedia edits for a long history of vandalism... will try again later from a different PC. --Honestmistake 09:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_DGAF2
- There is now a working version on my talk page, {{User DGAF}}, now it's here too.--Karekmaps?! 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Free Speech Policy
Hilarious comment to wooty, had to come let you know I enjoyed it! :D 'arm. 10:31, 27 September 2007 (BST)
| Honestmistake said: |
| no what this policy does if justify abuse by claiming it as a right of free expression. half a line pointing out that "civility" is preferred does not reflect the majority of users preference at all, what we want is needless abuse toned down! |
How about a Project Civility? I was thinking about this a few days ago, and something like that would be much more akin to the 'community-lead civility encouraged for others to use' that most/all seem to desire. A civility policy would either try to FORCE civility (and would never go through, or work) or just be so wishy-washy that it wouldn't actually even be a real policy. I'd probably put a !C link in my sig, if it started. However, I don't really have time for the wiki at the moment, and so I'm probably not the right person to start the thing. 'arm. 22:14, 3 October 2007 (BST)
Wiki Guide thing
To be perfectly honest, I think you summed up exactly why the rules surrounding being rude don't need to be enforced strongly with Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet so as to get away with offensiveness is cowardly, immature and pathetic and most of the community look down on it as such.. The only issue with stating it too forcefully would be that this is a guide that is designed for new wiki users, and as such will be (hopefully) friendly and informal. I think that forcefully stating anyting too much may make people overly nervous, or just turn them off completely. If you want to put a few sentences together to sum something up that treads the line between being informative whilst not being overly harsh, I'd be grateful.--Seventythree 15:56, 26 September 2007 (BST)
Oh dear....
I never knew making a point about dramamongering and nastieness would cause so much.... well, drama and nastieness.--Seventythree 01:43, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Re:Slaves of the Mistress
You say that Slaves of the Mistress is still around? How has the mistress being doing these days? Are there any more members still around?--Private Mark 15:55, 11 July 2007 (BST)
We have always been more a group of like minded reprobates to be honest and i have not seeen the mistress for a long while... course she was on the other side of the city. Mr A. seems to have left the wiki but i believe he still plays! Arson Lover on the other hand was amongst the first recruits and is currently plaguing hildebrand! --Honestmistake 17:53, 11 July 2007 (BST)
- Alright, that's enough for me. I'll go change me vote now.... And I look forward to fighting one of you these days. :D --Private Mark 01:01, 13 July 2007 (BST)
- And i look forward to ramming Bananahz somewhere very uncomfortable :D metaphorically of course!--Honestmistake 10:07, 13 July 2007 (BST)
Ardbeg
RIP bottle of Ardbeg 10 y.o. Lifetime Feb 08 - Feb 13. Well made a good effort yesterday afternoon to finish the bottle and fell just a little bit short. The taste definitely grows on me but my next bottle will be something less peaty (and cheaper!). Might be time to start drinking the choice of professional alcoholics world wide - vodka. Cheaper and less hangover...--SporeSore 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Whisky, water, GlenLivet
I was too hard on the GlenLivet I think. Last week-end I was feeling cheap, and got a mickey of vodka and a bottle of GlenLivet 12 y.o. May they both rest in piece. The GlenLivet was a pleasant companion this week, and given the fact that I tend to shoot rather than sip these days, a better bottle would be wasted. GlenLivet 12 == $35. GlenLivet 18 == $80. I do not think I will be getting the 18 any time soon. As for water and ice. I tend to agree that if you have to add water or ice, it is not worth drinking, but sometimes, in my more contemplative moods, I like a little water to watch the tiny swirls. --SporeSore 00:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mmmm, tiny swirls... even better if its not been chill filtered! I myself was feeling poor last week so bought a bottle of ladaig because it was on offer. Never heard of it and now wish i never had!!! So bad i had to go out and buy a bottle of something decent to cheer myself up!--Honestmistake 17
- 13, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Hey its an excuse and i will stand by it!
- Picked up a bottle of 10 yo laphroaig today. Will try and hold off on cracking it for a few days. More peaty goodness.
- I think I am in love! This is the perfect blend of peat and malt to me, and it is not too dear. I have to admit I still prefer to add a few drops of water to it... :) --SporeSore 16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Picked up a bottle of 10 yo laphroaig today. Will try and hold off on cracking it for a few days. More peaty goodness.
- I am continuing to enjoy my bottle of LaPhroaig. The fact that it is still around is proof that I am savouring it! BTW. have you ever heard of the GlenBreton, the only single malt scotch produced outside of Scotland in Cape Breton? I live in Nova Scotia Canada of which Cape Breton is a part and that is where GlenBreton is produced. It is not bad, but over priced with a weird aftertaste. However, I have in my possession a bottle of GlenBreton ice, a single malt aged in ice wine kegs. Ice wine is a sort of specialty of Nova Scotia; we can not grow decent grapes but our frost produces some mightly fine ice wines. This Scotch is aged in used ice wine barrels. I have a bottle hidden in my underwear drawer waiting for that special moment, a moment of cannibis excentuated taste buds and drunken depravity...--SporeSore 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I envy you. It's been too long since my budget has allowed for much better than a £15 bottle of Jameson.--Seventythree 18:41, 5 May 2007 (BST)
Ahhh... ASDA. Perpetual friend to the poor, alcoholic and lazy.--Seventythree 22:20, 5 May 2007 (BST)
Who are you calling... erm... ah...oh... Bugger! --Honestmistake 00:46, 6 May 2007 (BST)
Mostly I was talking about my own needs for cheap booze to be honest. I'ts a bit of a dillema, the entire ASDA thing. I live about 2 miles from ASDA so the choice is do I buy a little expensive booze from the local Londis (chain of overpriced offlicences for anyone not living in england) or do I get the energy together to get the bus out to ASDA to fufill my need for Booze, smokes and snacks? Problems, problems, problems....--Seventythree 00:56, 6 May 2007 (BST)
- Isle of Jura ... .... .... ah!
Oh my goodness. Aberlour A'Bunadh... --SporeSore 14:07, 12 May 2008 (BST)
Seventythree
So what do you think shall we post something like the above or do you think we need more work/talk page first?--Honestmistake 14:16, 9 May 2007 (BST)
Iv'e gotta say I like all of these. Hmm. I don't think that damaging a zombie by one point when infected is going to be liked, maybe instead of protecting for 3-6hours, it protects againgst the next bite that would infect? I reckon we should put them on discussions... i'ts up to you who does it, I think we've both put work into it, so if you want to take nursing/triage and i take the infection one? Or the other way round, whatever way you know i'm gonna acknowlege that both of us worked on it. Don't wana be taking credit for someone elses work. --Seventythree 15:50, 9 May 2007 (BST)
- I like the 1 point of damage and given that the zed probably has digestion anyway its more for flavour (bad pun) anyway! As for putting them up on the talk page I think whichever one of us does it we should both sign as authors anyway. Its not like one of us did more work. I am crap with templates and often break the page but if i get time in work tommorow i will try to template one of them and put it here, then when you notice just add your sig and paste it over to Talk. and i will try to do likewise ;-) --Honestmistake 16:33, 9 May 2007 (BST)
Vouch
Thanks for that. I'm really glad to see that you're willing to give me a chance. --Cyberbob Sys U! 12:26, 11 May 2007 (BST)
And again! You're too kind for words, Honest. Your comment was spot-on. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 15:25, 13 September 2007 (BST) <math>Insert formula here</math>
policy
If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or in any way directly involved in the case, the administration strongly asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment.
Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting.
If two users are diametrically opposed on an edit, we recommend that the two users go to UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration, and find a third party to help them resolve their differences. Sysops do not take kindly to users using UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning as a personal battleground.
On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki".
This, while quite broad and useful, does lead to interpretation. We make the following notes on what isn't vandalism:
* An unwanted edit to any page. * An edit that adds information arising from a misunderstanding. * An edit that improves the page from a user you don't like.
"soft warnings"
currently soft warnings are issued by mods whenever they feel someone is pushing the limits. They have no official status but can serve a very useful purpose in that they can help avoid conflict or give a chance to step back from potential vandalism... They have even been used to reprimand users who have broken rules/policy but have not been felt to have done so maliciously thus giving people the chance to step back before real harm is done!
However ignoring/disagreeing with the issuing mods reasoning can and is taken as evidence of bad faith even when it is clearly not always the case. Soft warnings under these circumstances can stiffle dissent, a soft warning should be a gentle reminder that you are breaking or are about to break the rules not that you are doing something that is disaproved of by the issuing mod
Reply
Are you wanting to sign with "Honestmistake" on most parts of the wiki, but use another name for other parts? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Alrite? I noticed your question while trawling Gnomes page to maybe mess stuff up a bit :). the only way I know to change your sig invloves a bit of effort on your part. Basicaly instead of signing as normal, you'd make the timestamp and type something like this: (I'm using my sig as an example here) [[User:Seventythree|Beanz!]] ~~~~~
This then turns into this: Beanz! 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(using 5 of these ~ creates a timestamp)
Heh. Hope this is helpfull.--SeventythreeTalk 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
T-Bone 09:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem! If you want you could just have this text somewhere, and just copy paste.
--[[User:Honestmistake|T-Bone]] ~~~~~
Then you can just copy paste.--SeventythreeTalk 09:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like 73 got to it before I. :D -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. recent changes, boredom and general nosieness wins again!--SeventythreeTalk 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Careful who you poke with that thing!
You didn't revive Silisquish the Feral. :p niyaa-niyaa-niyaa niyaa-niyaa niyaa! --Silisquish 20:52, 22 October 2008 (BST)
A/VB
Do it again and you'll earn yourself a report too. Fair warning and all that. 
Cyberbob 13:49, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- Fine by me Bob as my comment is perfectly alright to be there and its you who is making an issue out of it... Slow day at uni?--Honestmistake 13:51, 6 April 2009 (BST)
BECOMING a pointless edit war?
You guys have been at it for hours, sheesh. Why did you even get involved? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:03, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- I have a long history of disliking that particular guideline and always get involved if i see people using it to take the piss.--Honestmistake 14:29, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- honest bases his self-worth around his ability to get involved
Cyberbob 14:04, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- I am simply trying to make a point that Bob himself has argued for in the past... namely that reasonable comment does not need to go on the talk page. Bob seems to be bored today but the comment will keep going back up until a sysop rules it should not be there (and gives good reasons why) or I finish work and go the pub. Oh and just by making a case against me you have actually made me into an involved party meaning that the "guideline" explicitly allows me to post there now. --Honestmistake 14:23, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- only in the case against you, and you'll note that I left the post you made there alone you fucking mong Cyberbob 14:28, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- only in the case against you, and you'll note that I left the post you made there alone you fucking mong
- I am simply trying to make a point that Bob himself has argued for in the past... namely that reasonable comment does not need to go on the talk page. Bob seems to be bored today but the comment will keep going back up until a sysop rules it should not be there (and gives good reasons why) or I finish work and go the pub. Oh and just by making a case against me you have actually made me into an involved party meaning that the "guideline" explicitly allows me to post there now. --Honestmistake 14:23, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- I am wondering, are you actually transferring all new comments to the talk page? Invalid they may be but you can't just delete them on sight. I'm on phone browser so alas, I can't check every deleted comment to see if they are merely duplicates, let alone do it myself. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- they're close enough to being the same that it doesn't really matter. I moved the last one as it contains a decent amount of new text but the rest... meh. I can go back and copy them in though, it would actually be p damn funny ;p Cyberbob 14:12, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- they're close enough to being the same that it doesn't really matter. I moved the last one as it contains a decent amount of new text but the rest... meh. I can go back and copy them in though, it would actually be p damn funny ;p
Sweet cookie action
You asked for it.
|
A FREE COOKIE |
| Giles has given you a cookie for the good of humanity |
--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 00:41, 11 June 2009 (BST)
Wiki Cookie...?
 |
Rolfero-Wiki-Cookies! |
| Rolfero baked you some wiki-cookies!
|
Have a cookie... of pure evil!!!!!!!!!
|
A FREE VERY EVIL COOKIE... OF EVEN MORE EVIL! |
| Imthatguy has given Honestmistake an evil cookie for for making a stand against the Sysops. Go on... eat it. |
--DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 09:23, 17 July 2009 (BST)
Warning
Please do not post irrelevant information onto the main A/VB page. Continuing to do so will result in further warnings and punishments. Please use the talk page in future. --ϑϑℜ 01:09, 18 July 2009 (BST)
- i do not agree with this warning as my edit was made in good faith and was (at least partialy) responsible for having not 1 but 2 incorrect warnings struck. --Honestmistake 01:49, 18 July 2009 (BST)
- It was responsible for sweet fuck all, I'm afraid. You're overcreditting yourself hugely, and the comment was entire unecessary and only there to screw things up. And no, the sysops have deemed this to be in bad faith obviously, and if everyone's blind opinion of their comment's faith was taken into account after such long scrutiny, we would have no vandals, would we?
- And you don't agree with it? Again, tough shit. Look at your comment, you just proclaimed yourself a martyr, and then denounced that you should have taken the fall, in just one sentence. You never cease to amaze me. --ϑϑℜ 02:01, 18 July 2009 (BST)
- and too think I had faith that you might actualy be capable of judging thing fairly... Ah well, that alone seems to suggest that i have poor judgment! --Honestmistake 02:04, 18 July 2009 (BST)
- Well tried, but yes, everything you think is in fact in poor judgement. I don't need your pathetic blind faith in me to determine that. Look at the scoreboard, buddy. I'm not the only one who was sick of your useless crap. --ϑϑℜ 02:07, 18 July 2009 (BST)
- Dont be a dick--DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 09:28, 23 July 2009 (BST)
- Wow, you've actually said something I can agree with at last. Nice work. Don't be a dick, m'kay -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:36 23 July 2009 (BST)
- I'll do what needs to be done when Honest is contacting sysops to re-review his case and frothing to have his warning reversed. It was uncalled for. Stop revisiting something that has already died quietly. --ϑϑℜ 09:39, 23 July 2009 (BST)
- You where still being a dick --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 09:46, 23 July 2009 (BST)
- DDR is being a dick but so are many many other people. I'm not saying you shouldn't tell DDR to stop but in the interests of consistency you might try telling everyone else to stop as well. --Cyberbob 09:56, 23 July 2009 (BST)
- We could all try to do that everyday --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 09:59, 23 July 2009 (BST)
- DDR is being a dick but so are many many other people. I'm not saying you shouldn't tell DDR to stop but in the interests of consistency you might try telling everyone else to stop as well. --Cyberbob 09:56, 23 July 2009 (BST)
- You where still being a dick --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 09:46, 23 July 2009 (BST)
- I'll do what needs to be done when Honest is contacting sysops to re-review his case and frothing to have his warning reversed. It was uncalled for. Stop revisiting something that has already died quietly. --ϑϑℜ 09:39, 23 July 2009 (BST)
- Wow, you've actually said something I can agree with at last. Nice work. Don't be a dick, m'kay -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:36 23 July 2009 (BST)
- Dont be a dick--DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 09:28, 23 July 2009 (BST)
- Well tried, but yes, everything you think is in fact in poor judgement. I don't need your pathetic blind faith in me to determine that. Look at the scoreboard, buddy. I'm not the only one who was sick of your useless crap. --ϑϑℜ 02:07, 18 July 2009 (BST)
- and too think I had faith that you might actualy be capable of judging thing fairly... Ah well, that alone seems to suggest that i have poor judgment! --Honestmistake 02:04, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Look on the bright side
You're practically guaranteed to be able to have that warning struck in a month with all the edits you make ;) --Cyberbob 17:07, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Thanks
For bothering to cause a ruckus over all that. We were this close *holds fingers up about 1cm (1/2 inch if you're that way inclined) apart* to having the wiki become a police state. --xoxo 01:48, 19 July 2009 (BST)
