User talk:Iscariot

The Talk Page of Iscariot

By posting here you agree to and accept the following rules. The Rules: 1. Post new comments at the top using a level 2 header. 2. Post all comments in correct English and grammar. This means real English, not the bastardised forms from the colonies. 3. You will not be a moron. Seriously, you're supposed to be a human being, act like it here please. 4. You will sign your posts in the conventional manner, this means with your own signature and with a datestamp. Templated signatures may be used without restriction provided they do not negatively impact the operation of this page. 5. Using the "+" button is not a good idea. I hate scrolling to the bottom of the page (talk pages get very long) and your reply will be ignored on principle. If my attention is required for something or is a procedural message, kindly place it at the top of the page in accordance with rule 1. These rules apply without exception to any page in my userspace, that's any page that begins User:Iscariot or User talk:Iscariot. This means you shouldn't go hunting for other pages to just be annoying. Erm Why did you remove Karek as well as Pestolence from the arbitrator list? Pestolence hasn't made an edit since June so that's justified but Karek's last edit was on the 19th. Did he ask for it or something? Cyberbob  Talk  08:06, 27 September 2009 (BST) I'll be waiting for my apology.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:12, 27 September 2009 (BST) You will get your apology when you explain two things: what the apology is for, and why you removed Karek from the list. Cyberbob  Talk  09:17, 27 September 2009 (BST) Click this link. Now use this wonderful power I expect you to have called reading, spot Karek and then apologise. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:44, 27 September 2009 (BST) I've decided that you don't deserve an apology. If apologies mean so much to you perhaps next time you could be a bit more gracious in your responses. Cyberbob  Talk  09:49, 27 September 2009 (BST) Just so everyone reading this is aware, I was performing routine maintenance as proscribed by the wiki job list and completed it as stated in the guidelines. Cyberbob came here and accused me of removing a user incorrectly when anyone who clicked the page in question could see that his accusation was false. Despite being categorically proven wrong no apology was offered and instead a blatant personal attack was launched even though Cyberbob was at fault throughout. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:59, 27 September 2009 (BST) I prefered it when this page was a haven against sysops...what happened to that rule? --xoxo 06:40, 8 October 2009 (BST) Sysops You have said repeatedly recently that you'd like to see new sysops promoted to cover the slack. Recently, I've considered running, and I consulted the current sysops prior to your return about it. They said that I needed to become more present in drama-nests such as a/vb and a/m, which I have tried to do since, although have not yet completely achieved. In your opinion, if I were to continue to work on these goals, would you support me in a sysop bid?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:08, 25 September 2009 (BST) It is not entirely to do with presence in these arenas, nor the quantity of contributions but the quality of those contributions. Awareness of precedent and abandonment of ego as regards these arenas. Conndraka and Cyberbob are bad sysops by this criteria, both exercise the power of the sysop as if it's some elite and divine right, and both cause more drama and discord in the community as a result. However, not causing drama by non-participation also makes you a bad sysop, see The Rooster in the recent Nubis drama, it would have been in the community's best interest to have full participation from the admin team, yet apparently it's beneath The Rooster even though he was active elsewhere (targeting me whilst still doing fuck all about a major group doing the same), such traits also make a bad sysop. The important thing to consider is why you want to be a sysop and what you will do when promoted, these are just as important as procedural and policy knowledge. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:53, 26 September 2009 (BST) I want to be a sysop so that I can help out on the admin pages, instead of just turning up and reading them, or occassionally posting a semi-relevant comment on the talk. Being a sysop, I'd be able to actually do something about things. I'm certainly aware that i've been trollish in the past, and I feel I've made steps towards fixing this more recently.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 09:50, 26 September 2009 (BST) Theoretical ruling time. Say you're a sysop, provide a ruling and explanation for it for the following cases; 1 and 2 will do for starters. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:40, 26 September 2009 (BST) On the SA case, I'd say borderline Misconduct. I didn't read the whole thing, but from the beginning section, he opened the door to misconduct by using his sysop status as a badge. Furthermore, that precedent against Hagnat that Cheese linked to is fairly clear. I'll read the other one briefly, then I'll read over them again to check if I stand by my decisions.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:46, 26 September 2009 (BST) I'd also say misconduct on the Boxy case. He used his powers to remove groups which, at the time they were added, were deemed historical. They should be evaluated by the process that stood at the time, not the present one. That would be like holding re-evaluations for sysops who had held the position but were no longer sysops anymore, like Odd Starter. It would be ridiculous.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:52, 26 September 2009 (BST) And based on this I won't be vouching for you. Conndraka used to pull the same behaviour, rule on something and then maybe, possibly read and understand the circumstances later. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:54, 26 September 2009 (BST) If this were an actual case, I would have read it. Since it's just you finding my general opinion, I gave a general opinion. As I'm havign two conversations at once, i thought it would be best to give a swift response, and a more evaluated one later. In the case of an actual a/m case, I'd have several days to make a ruling, not five minutes.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:59, 26 September 2009 (BST) Major Polish I'm a bit too close to this to really see the glaring logical areas, want to lead me through them, much like a confused and drunken child? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:05, 20 September 2009 (BST) Logical errors wise, I see two major ones: "More importantly no zombie or hostile groups are listed. " followed by "Get a rivalry going" The notion that the wiki is accurate when it comes to group placement and effectiveness. I guarantee that the DEM are still listed in at least 10 suburbs they don't have anyone in. The big problem though is it's lack of style, there's nothing there, no character. Grim's guide and my rantings work because of their unadulterated loathing for people who do differently, and people have a platform then to engage it from, this guide has no soul, with no soul there's nothing to make a connection to a newbie searching this vast resource for help. It becomes forgettable. I can see what you're saying because I've been playing for years, your facts are sound, I know this, you know this, but without any explanation as to why it becomes just as valid as Brainguard's Fort strategy to newbies. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:59, 20 September 2009 (BST) Frankly thats two good points. The DEM aren't as bad as they were, and when I challenged the MFD, (By far the worst offender) I did manage to take them off 20 or so suburbs. I'll change both those points. As for style, you're right. Lookng back it shows that I wrote it in 3 big chunks and It doesn't flow. I'm just wondering If its possible to inject character in a way other than anger? As I'm here which 80's programme are you referencing with your sig? The one with the remake or the one with the hoff? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:52, 20 September 2009 (BST) Style's a funny thing. NMH worked as it was written in one sitting as an outpouring at the banality of that SOS page, HTABRG (sig link) was written over several months and is more vanilla, think about how you want your guide to approach the user and from that dictate the tone and language of the piece. I style most of my stuff after The Prophet Hicks or 2, generally because that's how I write and argue in general, it doesn't mean aggression is the only method of structuring a guide. Find another work, whether guide, novel or even a review that you want your guide to be like and then from there see how it could be done in a vanilla manner, an aggressive manner etc. From there you should be able to isolate what you like about it and apply it. I still think you need to increasing its size through explanations to qualify your remarks, I think it will end up three times bigger if done right. As for the TV show, I like the millennial remake: I like my toasters with blonde hair and legs that go all the way up.... The quote in the mouse-over text is from Leoben. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:07, 20 September 2009 (BST) The Demon of Razgriz Is this a character? If so, do you know who's user namespace it should be under? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:02, 16 September 2009 (BST) Yeah, it's a character, I'll go on the forum later and find the owner for you. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:09, 16 September 2009 (BST) PD Invite me you bum so I have somewhere to stick this comment that's sitting in my clipboard. Cyberbob  Talk  18:13, 15 September 2009 (BST) Signature Your signature must have at leased one character linking to your userpage. Users have been made to change their signatures before if the signature is nothing but redirect-images. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:38, 15 September 2009 (BST) So, are you going to change your signature to comply with the sig policy any time soon? The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages, image can link elsewhere. It's not obvious to newbies that the image is what they need to click on to find your userpage via a redirect. Signatures are there to make it easy for people to know who made a post, and to find their userpage to contact them -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:04 27 September 2009 (BST) Please do not add links to my user talk page. As you may not be aware, my signature is legal and was accordingly deemed so by the user who questioned it above. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:09, 27 September 2009 (BST) The link is to avoid your stupid set up here, where I have to edit the whole page, and find where I need to edit in a wall of text instead of being able to edit only the section I want to reply to. Any valid reason why you are making it difficult for people to use this page for it's intended purpose? Your signature isn't legal, you've been asked nicely to fix it, and haven't. The handle portion of a signature is a text link to your user page (or a sub-page thereof). Please modify it now -- boxy talk • teh rulz 06:32 27 September 2009 (BST) I dislike such links and have asked you nicely not to use them already. Do not place another one on my page. Please revisit your supposed timeline of events, the legality of my signature was questioned by a now current 'crat, the signature was altered and then deemed legal. If you are of the mistaken belief that my current signature is illegal I invite you to point directly as to which portion is illegal and why by quoting the appropriate section of the Signature Policy and then allow me the week am I permitted to select and code a new signature as allowed by policy. Although I am wondering, as are others no doubt, as to why my signature gets so much coverage when a member of the sysop team has had an illegal signature for months and not one of you have thought to bring that up. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:39, 27 September 2009 (BST) Adding a single full stop is not a suitable fix for this problem, as you well know, the handle portion of your sig needs to be obvious, not hidden away -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:40 27 September 2009 (BST) I'm waiting for the policy quote and the appropriate week, please supply the appropriate quote, as your current argument is provably incorrect due to basic precedent. Either my sig is legal, or other sigs by multiple users including sysops have been conveniently overlooked by you in the past. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:44, 27 September 2009 (BST) You've had your week. Do it, and do it now. If you have issues with other people's sigs, bring them up, don't just expect me to know what you're talking about -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:50 27 September 2009 (BST) I have not had a week at all, yet again I remind you that the last time the legality of my sig was brought into question and that notice was created, it was resolved within the hour and ruled as legitimate by the sysop in question. You are attempting to deny me the basic rights as established by policy and I find this to be clearly in bad faith, especially given your deceitful alterations to my vandal data history. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:59, 27 September 2009 (BST) I also invite you to undo your deceitful edits to my vandal history. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:39, 27 September 2009 (BST) Group Removal I should've consulted them, yes, but I was, and still am, sure that the Philosophe Knights are a PKer group, and therefore shouldn't be in the survivor section of a group template for a suburb. I also should've moved it from Survivor to Hostile, but there again I made a mistake. --RahrahCome join the #party!09:00, 13 September 2009 (BST) You shouldn't be moving them full stop. The Philosophe Knights have defended that mansion for years and been more survivor than most in the area. Elsewhere they might be considered hostile, at home they're survivor. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:08, 13 September 2009 (BST) I'm busy atm And thus give you permission to rep 2 Cool inc in the current arbies case, should you still desire to.--xoxo 01:26, 13 September 2009 (BST) Bob says I'm not allowed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:45, 13 September 2009 (BST) Unfortunately it's not bob's decision. Offers on the table if you want it, and i can choose anyone to rep me i want.--xoxo 05:43, 14 September 2009 (BST) To save them complaining, and have them continue to accuse my return as being anything other than a constructive new start, perhaps it would be easier for me to counsel you in this case off the wiki radar. Do you have perhaps an email address where I could send my thoughts? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:25, 14 September 2009 (BST) You are changing the core of the case and we have to accept that before the case continues. Even my argument took me a whole of 40 minutes (and if it weren't 1 in the morning it would have been done quicker), you can't dedicate half an hour of your time to write up an argument? On a wiki? In the name of 2 Cool? You've changed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:07, 14 September 2009 (BST) You say that like it's a bad thing. For example, I can post here now :). Linkthewindow  Talk  11:39, 15 September 2009 (BST) Appreciation Thread I did miss you. Welcome back. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:54, 12 September 2009 (BST) I was told by someone who frequents here that there was a major upheaval in the sysop system and a major drama job, thought I'd come help out (that's fix it, not add to it). Given I have five misconduct cases ready to go in my old guise, I'd appreciate the credit when I don't swarm the various pages with these and vandalism cases. New policy is needed as well as clarification of precedent, hopefully I'll be making a start shortly. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:59, 12 September 2009 (BST) ^_^ --Haliman - Talk 15:56, 12 September 2009 (BST) There may well be a new "Thou shalt not edit conflict me" rule going up :p -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:59, 12 September 2009 (BST) Well, I guess welcome back? I hope you make a fresh start. I'm not sure if I missed you, but I do miss the ability to edit sections on this page.--Thadeous Oakley 16:00, 12 September 2009 (BST) He's gone again. Possibly forever (see: 2 months).--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:55, 4 October 2009 (BST) I stand corrected. He's back.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:44, 5 October 2009 (BST)