User talk:Nubis/Archive1

Minor Things

Chronicle

It's a chronicle but i dont know how to do any of that stuff so can you do it for me?

Regards, --Montana8 18:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

in ur inventory

You can go ahead and delete it, it -was- a group idea, but it fell through. Thanks for the reminder. --DJ Deadbeat 01:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The message you left

Could you move my page then please? If thats ok? If not i'll post it in Move Requests like you said. Thanks --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 22:56, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Moved to User:Mightyoak/Mah ...blah blah blah. Need anything else let me know.--– Nubis ^NWO 01:48, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Thanks, I'll try not to mess the wiki up again! --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 03:55, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Permabanned Users

So it seems that members of the team are open to reviewing previous vandal banning cases in order to bring them up to date with this policy. Does this work for you? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I really need to go on a case by case basis when it comes to undoing previous decisions. As hard as it seems to get things done around here I would hate to just undo tons of bans with a blanket decision. But I will keep an eye on the discussion.--– Nubis ^NWO 01:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I am only going with what the policy is supporting, so the actual number of users to vote over should be down. There are a lot of one-edit vandals, sockpuppet vandals, and adbots that wouldn't be considered for unbanning. I'll clarify that in the discussion. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

TZH Subgroup Pages

Hey guys, we are in a transition now, the Disciples pages are still active, we would appreciate it if you guys would leave them up.

Links to active pages:

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Team_Zombie_Hardcore http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Team_Zombie_Hardcore/The_Dhisciples http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Team_Zombie_Hardcore/The_Dhestroyers http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Team_Zombie_Hardcore/Supernauts http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Team_Zombie_Hardcore/Enemies http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/TZH/MSC

Thanks again. --Dhavid Grohl 18:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

Yeah, I know, I found the crappier one first and the better one later. There night be another one too. Feel free to delete unused ones, or do I need to file a request? Hell, you have my permission to take this as permission to delete the usnused ones, which should be all but one. (Yay redundancy?) If anyone take it to Misconduct I;ll tel them to get fucked. (I am slighyl driunk, does it show?) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Crit 7 is still valid when hammered or high :D.--Karek^maps?! 16:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. I'm always drunk when I'm in Misconduct, too. ;) --– Nubis ^NWO 20:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Locblo

What ones you want me to do? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha. The only ones other than Monroeville that are left are the ones on the Brooke Hills Streets mega-page. Of course, there is Hollomstown_Etc which I'm not sure I agree with. I don't like the idea of mega pages in some suburbs and individual pages in others. I'm not sure how it should be though. :/ --– Nubis ^NWO 01:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Brief explanation?

Hey there :) Sorry for not leaving an explanation on the A/MR, it's mostly due to sleep deprivation. Also, thanks for moving all those pages. --Janus ^talk 18:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Only this and this seem to be out of place now. I was wondering, I fixed the links in the Malton Chronicles page, but there are still the redirects like this one.

What to do with them? --Janus ^talk 18:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I was curious if the Liberation of Ackland should be under AMS space or just under the user space. That's why I didn't move it. I was going to check around and see if the author was actually a person of authority with AMS (like Tarmi) and then move it there. The other one just fell through the cracks. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Karth Salvage page

Added category. By the way, is there any good RP categories in use? --PROJECT K9 | _FU^{Talk | Rottary} 09:02, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Ye Olde Page

Is all yours. Fire at will. Zee artillery of course. _■^■ 04:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bhoreham

Ive got gps results?

look.

http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/10-29-08_1300hrs_PUBLIC/IN_542-19_look_3f9-666-50e.html --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's great. I didn't see any on the images I categorized so I was wondering if there were any yet. I love how fast the maps for the new cities come together. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummms

Wtf is [[Category:Suggestion|this]]? it has one thing in it apparently, but that page doesn't appear to exist...confusion = high.--xoxo 10:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, looks like another zombie page (in the sense that we can't delete it) We have found a few that have issues because they include special characters as Karek explained. There are even some images. It's annoying! Thank you for pointing them out and by the way - you can't link to a category page. Because putting category in brackets on a page puts that page in the category. :D When I clicked the link the category had 2 things - one was my talk page. --– Nubis ^NWO 12:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah i noticed that but cbf removing it, will remember for next time.--xoxo 05:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No biggie. I wasn't sure if you knew since it is such a habit to link to everything on here sometimes you forget what some links do.--– Nubis ^NWO 12:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Magick! --Toejam 16:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly magic if the category doesn't exist in the first place. But maybe the extra colon is the key....--– Nubis ^NWO 17:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting tidbit

User: A Bothan Spy was actually a sockpuppet of Mattiator's; he was trying to get me VB'd for "impersonating" someone else with my signature at the time. ;p --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:28, 25 October 2008 (BST)

I thought that seemed "out of character" for you. Or made you a hypocrite. :) I do have to admit I have some "questions" about redirects from one user name to another, but ultimately I think "sock puppet" pages shouldn't be validated.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny Things in the "It's only funny when someone gets hit in the groin" category

De-escalations

If a sysop de-escalates a user and that user is not eligible for de-escalation i.e. the sysop in question is either moderating the vandal data page by de-escalating people they choose or they just being plain incompetent, would that be a misconduct or vandalism case that would need to be brought? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

More than likely misconduct. I'll bite. Is there a particular reason you are asking? --– Nubis ^NWO 12:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Katthew doesn't seem to have made enough edits since the last escalation to warrant a warning being struck -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:38 11 December 2008 (BST)

The warning was from 2005. The guideline says a single vandal escalation can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that one month has passed since the user's last infraction,. It has been well over a month since 2005 and she has over 250 edits since 2005. It should have been struck well before this. Not to mention with the history purge I hardly trust the user contribution link and it's not like she's really even active here anymore.

It also doesn't say 250 edits since the warning. It just says that a month has to have passed since the infraction. But even if it meant 250 edits since the warning she clearly has 250 edits in her history since 2005. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Before striking there should be a month and 250 edits since the last infraction. Going inactive and just waiting for the months to pass does not show a change in behaviour. Katthew never seems to have got up 250 edits without an escalation (I did check to see if any should be struck before the last ban), even considering the history purge -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:38 12 December 2008 (BST)

It doesn't say that. The word "since" is by month not edits. Besides, the user contribution history is hardly accurate. The 2005 warning should have been struck and there really isn't a way to prove it one way or the other considering the history purge. Looking at my contributions clearly shows a gap. It says my first edit was on April 20, 2006 and I was promoted to sysop on April 26th, 2006 with the required amount of edits. That means that I'm missing at least 500 edits (as required for promotion). Are you really saying that my history is the only one with such gaps? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

While i agree with you that katthew should've her warning struck, i find it highly annoying to see you wiki-lawerying against a well stablished rule of this wiki. To remove a warning, one month must pass AND 250 edits must be made by the warned user SINCE the last warning he's got. There is no double interpretations on this. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 13:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "wiki-lawyering" (any more than Iscariot does). I'm fixing something that should have been fixed in 2006 (at least). You are trying to say that a warning in 2005 shouldn't be struck because there are warnings in 2008? That's ridiculous. Again, there is a gap in the history in 2006. For all we know she could have had 5000 edits (or maybe 500 like me) in 2006. I agree that none of the later warnings should be touched, but clearly striking the one that was missed can be done. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you missed the part were i said i agree with you that katt's 2005 warning should've been struck ? My concern lies in you trying to say a warning could've been struck after 1 month it was given, as long as the user had made 250 edits TOTAL per warning. I could've made 30k edits to the wiki before getting a warning, yet i still would have to make 250 NEW edits before i get it struck. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 13:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I did see that part. I was coming to a reasonable conclusion based on the facts at hand. (2005 warning, she continued editing beyond that warning, there was a history purge) The 2005 warning should be struck. (although now that I think about it, if you want to get technical the 2007 warning should have been struck since it says 2nd warning) That is the only real issue I see here. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And as I said, she never seems to have been able to wrack up 250 edits without getting another escalation (even before the history purge), which is what would indicate a change in behaviour. Just going inactive does not mean that the older warnings get struck... that requires constructive edits to the wiki -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:33 13 December 2008 (BST)

All of the above is irrelevant from a documentation stand point at this point as we can't verify either story and as such the only correct thing to do is to give the benefit of the doubt to the user. Especially in the case where there was a two year gap between the warning in question and the follow up, which included a history deletion and we have since then had another history deletion which means she's had the slate wiped clean twice and we really can't know how many edits she's had beyond that it's certainly more than 0-50.--Karek^maps?! 02:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to give everyone (not just Nubis' buds) the benefit of the doubt because of history purges, then I feel that a policy vote is in order. Funnily enough, it must have been struck, and unstruck, before -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:50 13 December 2008 (BST)

That's a leap boxy, there's no policy. Do we hold votes every time there's a question about interpretation of a rule? I understand where you're coming from with the belief that Katthew doesn't have 250 edits, I remember there weren't many between the last two purges, however she was obviously active before that. Katthew's is a somewhat unique case, there will rarely be one like it and the case you show shows the dilema we have here because of it. That as after the first purge, and it's understandable the action taken and why is obviously seen. However unless they are serving a ban for the period between the purges the least we can do is give a user that was known to be active when they got the warning the benefit of the doubt in a case where it's been two years between escalations. We can wait on her next scheduled striking, that's fine, doesn't bother me but, in future cases like this should they ever arise it's kinda ridiculous to not strike the warning after two years just because we can't know for sure if they got enough edits specifically for that reason.--Karek^maps?! 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if I brought a misconduct case showing clearly an incorrect de-escalation from after the recent history purge, not one of you would vote misconduct. Kind of makes all this rhetoric a bit hollow doesn't it? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just spit it out, Iscariot? Which one was clearly incorrect? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:50 13 December 2008 (BST)

Let me get this straight. I was going through the Vandal Data striking warnings (including Iscariot's by the way so this clearly isn't just the buddy system) and found one that when taking into consideration the history purges seemed likely to warrant being struck. And instead of coming right out and saying, "Hey, I don't think Katthew's should be struck" Iscariot posts little veiled threats and cryptic comments (not just on my talk page, but on Admin pages, too). So you, boxy, dig through the Vandal Archives to find one thing that now can not be proven one way or the other and is just "opinion" at this point that supports your argument. (And Hag even posted on here that he thinks it should be struck - which is the opposite of the "evidence" boxy worked so hard to find)

Karek, thank you for again being the voice of reason. I'm not surprised by boxy's responses here since he's against the Amnesty policy and clearly thinks users should be punished instead of redeemed (except Grim for some reason). So, in conclusion:

	Goon
	Nubis is to be shunned and persecuted for being a filthy goon from the Something Awful forums.

Either take it to misconduct or shut the fuck up. But either way this conversation is over on here.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just A Question

Don't take this as an attack because it isn't, but don't you have to request any Speedy Deletions and then have another Sysop fulfill those deletion Requests? Or am I reading wikipolicy wrong (an easy mistake)? Also, were they User pages that were redirected? because in that case, they are only Crit 3's? I want you to prove me wrong here btw, haha, I need to learn this shit before getting so involved.--CyberRead240 15:39, 25 October 2008 (BST)

I don't think you really know me very well. It's ok.

Some of those were crit 3, 9, and/or 11. Many of them had less than 25 (being generous)views. As a matter of fact I discovered that redirects to coordinates have more page views than most user redirects. COORDINATES. A ton of them were created by a banned vandal that made the precedent on banning IPs. A couple were "misspelling" redirects that still included USER prefix that may have been missed when the user's page was recreated with the correct name space. Several of them had no links what so ever.

If you can't tell by now with all of the crap jobs I get into on here I like having large projects (images, templates). Cleaning up the redirects is one of the larger projects around that I hadn't discovered yet until now. Since most of the time our job description seems to be "janitor" I think we should be cleaning/organizing things rather than dealing with A/VB (unless needed) or bothering regular users with our personal agenda.

You do what you have to do.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:06, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Fair call, I can respect that. I know what it is like to be misread by other users haha. I agree with the deletion of these redirects, btw, I just think the DDR and ALHG redirects should be allowed to stay, only because it is a helluva lot easier to type ALHG in the search bar, and I do use them. Thats the only real reason I am voting keep on the deletions case and caring about it so much. I think the whole "Nallan" and "J3D" having their own redirects is a bit ridiculous and, despite our obvious friendship, I have told them personally that it shouldn't be on the wiki. Maybe a discussion should ensue about the Acronym issue, but it would just get trolled too much with all the tension lately and turn into a fight.

But yeah, I respect what you guys do, and I especially respect those who give honest answers. Thanks for taking the time to reply dude--CyberRead240 16:14, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Both Jed and I have made it clear that we don't give a shit about our personal redirects.--Nallan (Talk) 01:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understand that I can't bring myself to justify a redirect for user X but delete it for user B. The only way I could almost see a redirect being needed is if the user name (lets say Nallan for example) was made with pipes | | or 1 1 instead of L's. It would be difficult to locate their page. I don't think that length of name is justification. Seriously, I just think it should be added to your watch list. I know I personally prefer to make links to pages I need on my talk page. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A/D

Regarding your vote on several user redirect pages i have separated the case into individual cases, if you feel so inclined please recast your vote on each page relevant to how you feel about that particular redirect being kept on the wiki. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.--xoxo 07:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I offered up what I think is a reasonable compromise, but please understand my position on all user redirects.--– Nubis ^NWO 12:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm an asshole section

Wah

Still hurtin', I see. But seriously, given that I'm the one that reported grim for that misconduct, and called for his demotion and agreed to at least a months ban, your commentary is simply flat out lying. Please edit it to be more accurate -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:05 14 November 2008 (BST)

lol --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah nubis you aren't allowed anti boxy sentiment on the wiki.--xoxo 13:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's been on my page for over a month and it is a direct C&P from you, boxy. I didn't alter your template at all.

I see you still miss the point about how retarded a hostile takeover = 5 VBs is.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said you altered the template... "your commentary is simply flat out lying" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:59 15 November 2008 (BST)

Ah! Ok. Changed it to say "it isn't the end of the world." That work? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:37 16 November 2008 (BST)