User talk:DanceDanceRevolution/status

Damn them sigs

This user doesn't like sig templates and prefers an oldschool non-templated sig (and contributes to reducing server load by using one).

Not only is there a shitload of superfluous text on the template page (that, while noincluded, is still called on every time this is used on a page), it is designed to be regularly updated (whenever you go on/off-line), meaning extra server work whenever this happens -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:46 12 April 2009 (BST)

I briefly read a recent administration protection case similar to that, and I gathered that it was healthy for the server if the superfluous information was put on the page via a template. Was I wrong? I only skimmed through the case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:43, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Since it's templated, you can have all the superfluous text you like, won't make a dent. --  RoosterDragon  14:49, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Phew! I was actually thinking, I could have either been right, and helped the server, or dead wrong, and hurt the server even more without knowing it. Thank god it was the former :SD^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:53, 12 April 2009 (BST)

I must have missed that one. Neat trick if it works!

Still, once you get this onto 1000 pages, the constant status updates may cause a bit of groanage -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:51 13 April 2009 (BST)

The thing is, you might be right, but I used the hypothesis about the templated noinclude information and I templated the statuses, the code and everything. Basically, every aspect of this system is templated, so, lets say, editing the 'superfluous information' template twice a day should have the exact same affect as editing my status twice a day. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:44, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Well, no. When you update the superfluous text, that only triggers one update since it's only included on this page (and the noinclude tags prevent it spreading further). When you update the status, that triggers lots of updates since that is included lots of times on lots of pages. The software then has to update all of those pages. --  RoosterDragon  15:28, 17 April 2009 (BST)

So much for wishful thinking. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (BST)

the status is a lie!

--xoxo 04:06, 10 May 2009 (BST)

Tricking simpletons gets me off. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:27, 10 May 2009 (BST)

writing the 2C history does it for me.--xoxo 04:57, 10 May 2009 (BST)

how can i win the game when your status isn't even accurate?--xoxo 07:54, 20 May 2009 (BST)

Because I hate you. Erm, sometimes when I'm only going on for 5 minutes I don't bother changing it. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:59, 20 May 2009 (BST)

:(--xoxo 08:02, 20 May 2009 (BST)

Yeah... Well, if I did change it, it would only be idle anyway. So you wouldn't be able to advance on the final goal anyway. :( D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:29, 20 May 2009 (BST)

already got this one, yawn. --xoxo 14:57, 23 July 2009 (BST)

cause you're lame. net time you come to my place, break my computer and my phone so i can only use the wii, or something liek that --ϑϑℜ 14:58, 23 July 2009 (BST)

OKAY.--xoxo 15:01, 23 July 2009 (BST)

JUST SO YOU KNOW: someone on #urbandeadwiki suggest I kill you IRL. It may have even been boxy *dun dun duuuuuuuun* --ϑϑℜ 15:29, 23 July 2009 (BST)

i'll avb him. --xoxo 15:30, 23 July 2009 (BST)

I dare you to make an a/a case against Wan so he can never use the phrase "ad hominimen" again on the wiki. --ϑϑℜ 15:39, 23 July 2009 (BST)

tempting, tempting. There'd be a lot of others too. --xoxo 01:02, 25 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah! You wouldn't be able to say 2cool or niggers, evie wouldn't be able to say dissapointing ;) what would be my word? --ϑϑℜ 02:04, 25 July 2009 (BST)