User talk:Revenant/Archive/3

Archive!

Old stuff goes here.

discussion on historical groups

Please see here my reasoning regarding why a vote which is not legitimate is not counted. It is an admin function and I do this with every vote that is done this way, which happens too fucking much for something so simple. Undo again, you can consider the action taken to vandal banning where it can be handled there. And again, the notion that I only do it for people that vote against me is a laugh. Grow up. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:20, 1 April 2011 (BST)

I considered it laughable when you levelled it against me, too, but you seemed to be taking it seriously, which is why I said it in jest today. Guess I touched a nerve? Ease up, man, taking things this seriously is not good for you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:28, 1 April 2011 (BST)

It's my job and it's a very easy rule to follow, yet people can't and I become the bad guy for asking them to do it properly. Months of it just becomes annoying. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:32, 1 April 2011 (BST)

Dude. The reason literally every other wiki I've ever used accepts correctly marked-up {{unsigned}} votes is that to use them correctly you have to look up the edit in the page history: you know, the thing that is the actual record of their edit? The signature is just a formality.

Before blindly following "the rules", a good administrator should look at what rules actually exist as well as why they exist and whether they could be improved. If it's so annoying, do something about it! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:37, 1 April 2011 (BST)

But that's not completely accurate, people in different timezones may have different things in their preferences and that gives people different personal times that an edit time happened, dealing with it just becomes a nuisance. that's not even taking into account the potential for false timestamping (though there's no real reason it would happen bar trying to slip votes in early). Personally, I have nothing wrong with the rule. It's simple, it is a very easy rule to follow, and you don't blame the rule when there are people who can't do it and get aggressive over it; you blame the people I guess.

Either way, you were right about things getting personal, it was never my intention but sometimes things can get out of control, as they did, so I'm sorry about that. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:44, 1 April 2011 (BST)

There are tools to easily convert, and I just use UTC most places anyway because it's simpler. Timestamps are best checked on History in any case. Short of Oversight or deletion, history never lies. The reason I am opposed to this petty bureaucratic bullshit is it's completely unnecessary and works to make the wiki actively more hostile to new users. Small wonder the game is dying…
Apology accepted. Thank you. :) And please, believe me when I say that I am sincere in my good intentions. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:49, 1 April 2011 (BST)

Sorry I forgot to note, but the timezone changes alter how the times appear in history too, I'm very sure. That's the problem, and already you're talking about getting converter tools for something that is much more reliably and easily executed by having one guy do (~~~~). And striking one single vote isn't something I'd bet would scare off a newbie, as much as the douchebags that used to roam this place and make it hard for them. I dunno. Might have to be one of the agree to disagree things but so far I'm fine with enforcing the rules to a point of uniformity among votes and signatures. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:54, 1 April 2011 (BST)

That's why I have my prefs set to use server time. Again, it's really no big deal – just fix it if someone fucks it up! It's a wiki, FFS, this is what they're excellent at! And seriously, if you wanna hear the real scoop on wiki-friendliness, listen to Jorm sometime. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:58, 1 April 2011 (BST)

Back

I have asked you a question on your bid. Also, can you kindly take more time to read the pages your editing? My rules are pretty clear on where I want new comments. I don't want to be nagging too much on something that minor, but please consider more careful reading because accidentally skimming over something seems to be a re-occurring theme with you. Thanks. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:53, 1 April 2011 (BST)

Jesus, it hasn't been a fuckin week already, has it?--

| T | BALLS! | 20:09 1 April 2011(UTC)

It has been. We should have taken SH's sage advice. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:13, 1 April 2011 (BST)

which was? i forgot?-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 04:53 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Replies and subsequent discussion on relevant pages. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:20, 3 April 2011 (BST)

a/pm

are you against us moving some of our extraneous discussion to the talk? I was interested in doing it myself but you can have a say, didn't want to look like the butthurt man hiding an argument which might have me seen in a negative light. But I do think the bid could do with some cleaning on our part? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:48, 3 April 2011 (BST)

I was thinking the same myself, but, like you, didn't want to move unilaterally. I think arguing in public puts us all in a less flattering light and would be glad to move the less germane stuff to talk. Might be worth summarising relevant points, and definitely link to anything you remove – I'll take a look and see what's happened later (just about to head out for the arvo), and I'm sure any other contributors will make their opinions known. Cheers! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:19, 3 April 2011 (BST)

It was hard to find certain definite points where things got less focussed and more argumentative so I did my best and just added a link there. Feel free to amend if you think I've taken out relevant notes. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:37, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Had to amend because the original conversation cut off was before Karek's input so it looked like karek was replying to nothing :| fixed now, alter at will. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:42, 3 April 2011 (BST)

avalanches dj set in sydney 3 june

first sydney show in like years, they're coming back man! dare you to go -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:39, 4 April 2011 (BST)

June, eh? Tempting, very… take it you're going? How much are tix? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:31, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Yeah, me and a mate. 60 bucks? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:19, 10 April 2011 (BST)

If I can, I'd love to, although I actually don't know much of their stuff. Obviously, I need to work on that. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:22, 12 April 2011 (BST)

first!

congrats.. now burn this mother fucker down! -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 23:58 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The butans, they call to me… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:48, 13 April 2011 (BST)

ey bro

We have cycled your bid as successful. Welcome to the War Room -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:43, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Awesome sauce. Is a spiffy white uniform provided, or do I have to make my own? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:48, 13 April 2011 (BST)

You'll have to order your own through Lowes, I'm afraid we outsourced out tailor to cut costs -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:37, 13 April 2011 (BST)

In that case, I think I'll just stick with black. It's more slimming, hides bloodstains, already constitutes a large portion of my wardrobe, and will save time in the inevitable event of my fall to the Dark Side needing to wear black to a funeral super-formal event or something. Yes. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:59, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Congrats Rev! ~ _{04:58, 13 April 2011}

Cheers Vapor! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:59, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Congrats! Not that I think you'll need them, but here are articles by Aichon, Ross and DDR. Good luck.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:54, 13 April 2011 (BST)

I hadn't seen the second one before – that is hilarious! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:05, 13 April 2011 (BST)

The "let's ruin the wiki" club on #redrum will be calling in their debt soon. (congrats Rev!) --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:52, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Congratulations (NAME). Now prove how terrible thad is as a sysop. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:56, 13 April 2011 (BST)

booyeah! -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 13:59 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested...

...on your protection request. I need some clarification on the documentation you'd like applied to {{unsigned}}. Trying to clear out the queue. If you end up just adding them yourself, just swing by A/PT and cycle, por favor. ~ _{06:57, 15 April 2011}

Bot edit summary

I nearly spit out some coffee when I read this edit summary. That is until I realised that Urirais != Uranus. √^¶°® ™ _{15:06, 18 April 2011}

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:39, 27 April 2011 (BST)

Vandal!

Even though you're a sysop now, you can't just vandalise people's pages like that >:( --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:34, 27 April 2011 (BST)

That wasn't vandalism: that was helpful! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:38, 27 April 2011 (BST)

I was forced to report you UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_04#User:Revenant

>:(

>:(

>:(

--Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:40, 27 April 2011 (BST)

“Forced”. Right. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:49, 27 April 2011 (BST)

When I voted for you as a sysop, I didn't know it would transform you into an evil evil man --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:51, 27 April 2011 (BST)

“Transform”? Have you been paying attention at all?
Complete the following sentence for me: “All power corrupts, absolute power…” ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:02, 27 April 2011 (BST)

With modest power comes modest responsibility. -- Spiderzed█ 14:27, 27 April 2011 (BST)

That wasn't what I asked! And you're not who I asked, either! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:56, 27 April 2011 (BST)

"All power corrupts, absolute power belongs to Boxy"?--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 15:05, 27 April 2011 (BST)

Hardly. Bureaucrat permissions don't actually give all that much. The real power on this wiki rests, as it always has, in the hands of Kevan. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:12, 27 April 2011 (BST)

Zomg

We joined the wiki on the same day.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 16:34, 27 April 2011 (BST)

!GMOZ ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:39, 12 May 2011 (BST)

POO

dutch pysops rule ta wiki -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:04, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Ja, bro, de Nederlanders zijn allemaal op in deze stront. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:10, 30 April 2011 (BST)

I'm going to have to inform you that sentence is grammatically incorrect. Dutch=Awesomeness though. You should visit! -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:14, 30 April 2011 (BST)

I'm not surprised, seeing as it was direct via Google translate… and yes, Netherlands is on my to-do list, hopefully within the year if all goes well. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:08, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Yeah cunts I'll come to dutchland and we can have a big fat cog-infested hollandish party yah? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:35, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Holy ballhole, I didn't mean for that to sound to awful. Don't worry brothers, I'm drunk on the tooheys but when I get to holland I'll hit back those heinikens liek there's no tomorow! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:37, 30 April 2011 (BST)

It's clog, klootzak.
Woo Tooheys! I'm on the Boag's. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:41, 30 April 2011 (BST)

LOL, surprised nobody has mentioned our famous export products yet. It's what 2/3 of the tourists come for anyway, but seeing how you behave when drunk it's prolly a bad idea. Also looking at the horrible dutch spoken here, it's probably a good thing the Netherlands is one of the best English speaking countries in Europe aside from (obviously) England and Ireland. Our accent is crinch-worthy though, really bad sometimes. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:26, 30 April 2011 (BST)

My parents never taught us Dutch because it's what their generation spoke when they didn't want the kids to understand. And yeah, all my Dutch cousins speak excellent English. Learning Dutch is on my to-do list. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:36, 30 April 2011 (BST)

The practical use of Dutch is limited, since it's not spoken anywhere outside the Netherlands and some parts of Belgium. Considering you'll be fine in those countries with just English I fail to see point. For the sake of heritage? Good luck though, I heard it's quite difficult to learn for a foreigner. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:46, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Moving things around

I see what you did there Unless it is scheduled stuff, you are expected to file it on A/MR and let a different op handle it (dual control and four eyes principle and all of that). At the very least, leave a note on A/MR for accountability. -- Spiderzed█ 11:23, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Ya, was going to leave a note right aftewrwards but my broswer is running really slowly and I wanted to finish what I was doing in another tab. P.S. why not on IRC? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:47, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Pretty busy this week (as my contribs probably attest). Entering IRC would just tempt me to waste time and not get things done. Hopefully, from next week on my schedule gets a bit easier. -- Spiderzed█ 11:55, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Yes when it's normal gay maintenenace stuff like fixing userspace pages in mainspace it's cool, but please leave a request or note on A/MR in future :| -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:31, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Sig

I has vandalized yours Off to Misconduct with me! -- Spiderzed█ 10:22, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Damn you withdrawing bastards breaking my links! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:48, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Ryu

How dare you touch the song

of st

reet fighters?! This is simply unacceptable!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryu (talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 May 2011.

Really?...

...I mean really? ~ _{20:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)}

It won't break shit; it's subst'd in. █████████████ 20:53, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Breaking shit isn't really what I was referring to. I just didn't really expect to see you behind something like that. Just disappointed is all. ~ _{21:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)}

Though it does appear there is some technical problem, still. ~ _{21:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)}

Sweetheart the boys won't like you with all that sand in your vagina. Lighten up. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:06, 1 May 2011 (BST)

So, what, you're saying I shouldn't help users that contact me? And the problem's been fixed, wouldn't even be an issue if I'd been using it templated. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:07, 1 May 2011 (BST)

What's the point of it? Are you trying to point out that there is some glaring problem in the sig policy or do you still think the ops are targeting goons. Or is it just trolling? I'm kind of thinking it's the latter. ~ _{21:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)}

If you're wondering why Rev is hanging with the goons, look at this page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:19, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Something needs closing. My words never glowed pink before. --Rosslessness 21:21, 1 May 2011 (BST)

It must be your godly powers.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:22, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Your inner fabulousity is shining through! Embrace it! --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:23, 1 May 2011 (BST)

As if I needed to gay this shit up any further. --Rosslessness 21:26, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Maybe we just like the fact he's not an absolute douche and knows how to have fun? Food for thought. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:23, 1 May 2011 (BST)

No, I knew Rev was a goon, I just thought he was one of those upper class goons. Silly me. ~ _{21:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)}

You fucking classist bastard, I hope you get strung from a lamppost when the revolution comes. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:27, 1 May 2011 (BST)

"The fully realized man does not identify with the local group."--

| T | BALLS! | 21:30 1 May 2011(UTC)

Revolution. Riiiiight. Who's taking things too seriously now. ~ _{21:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)}

Still you, fucknuts. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:42, 1 May 2011 (BST)

It's you. You are. Because at the end of the day, for us this is just a terrible wiki for a silly text based browser game that we happen to be stomping all over. For you, this is your world. And for Raul Julia, it's Tuesday. Or it would be if he were still alive. Which he isn't. And that's a shame because he was an incredible overactor. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:54, 1 May 2011 (BST)

You'll have to ask them; I'm just helping, here. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:55, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Vapor: This morning I went for a walk

Wearing: a pair of gold-rimmed glasses, a battered black felt trilby, a grey scarf, a white shirt, a black designer blazer, a black lined jacket, black silk-lined leather gloves, blue jeans and battered black work boots.

 Based on this, tell me if you can what class I am. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Class Clown? ~ _{02:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

An upperclassman, though. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:47, 2 May 2011 (BST)

This pretty much one the stupidest things I have seen in a while. This is pretty much vandalism and the template should be deleted. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:13, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Make the VB case then.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:17, 1 May 2011 (BST)

So you don't actually read what you write? Because you're a really fucking stupid person who somehow got into a position you have no fucking clue how to perform. In fact, you're the personification of what's wrong with the wiki. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:28, 1 May 2011 (BST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laughing Man (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 may 2011 (BST).

Goddamnit

Stop fucking edit conflicting me on my own talk page. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:55, 1 May 2011 (BST)

NEVER! --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 08:59, 2 May 2011 (BST)

leave my fucking boobies out of it!

i've had this image in my sig for years!--    bitch  12:25, 2 May 2011 (utc)

You were a safe example, man! The boobs are and were in no danger. Do you really think I would threaten such a work of art that brightens up everyone's day? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Template:Nosubst

Just thought I'd clarify my beliefs here in the hope that we don't have to keep going back-and-forth on the admin pages. Basically, templated signatures are allowed and have been for years because they cleanup code and allow signature changes to be retroactive.
Yes, {{Nosubst}} is hack to get around the software but it's a hack which is easier than trying to get Kevan to change the wiki settings and it doesn't particularly break anything.
If we want to ban templated signatures on the wiki, then I believe we should go about it like this:

1. Make a policy on signature length - to prevent the clutter of massive substituted sigs.
2. Make a policy banning the use of templated signatures.
3. Delete {{Nosubst}} after 1) and 2) have been done.

The reasoning: Templated sigs prevent massive quantities of clutter in the page code. The reason that other Wikis can do without them so effectively is that they limit signature length. If we want to do without templated signatures then that should really include a requirement for shorter signatures.

If you just want to get rid of the ugly hack that is {{Nosubst}} then I would suggest we should:

1. Persuade Kevan to add $wgCleanSignatures = false; to the settings file.
2. Delete the template after Kevan has made the change.

--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Ah, right. Well, we effectively have a limit on normal signature length now with the new wiki software version (255 chars, I believe), and a lot of users have already made the switch so as to reduce the load on various high-use pages. Passing a signature amendment policy is probably a better way to go about it, yeah; I was unaware that the original status quo permitted un-SUBST'd templated sigs. (History doesn't go back that far in most cases.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:36, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Yes, but people can still use templates to get around it. Given that {{Goonsig}} takes up about 9 lines of code then I would suggest that we need a policy in order to actually enforce it. Yes, lots of wiki history is lost by the fact that the history archives are purged, which sometimes makes it difficult to determine why a lot of stuff is done the way it is.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:50, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Here's a thought…

“	What wouldn't be allowed Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means.	”
—

Other means, like bypassing an inbuilt software restriction? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:44, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Only problem is that templated sigs don't actually break the wiki.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:50, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Actually, on many occasions they do, they constantly break inclusion limits and they're the only vehicle for signatures that can actually crash pages. There's not really anything good that comes from them, the code spam being prevented has a downside, it's that the limits on code length put in place to prevent stuff like Jedaz's evil text are removed.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It doesn't happen that often because most pages are archived off before we get to the limit. As for code spam, I'm pretty sure that the template inclusion limits prevent Jedaz's evil text from working anymore?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:15, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Actually I had to go on a template reduction spree because half the sysops were using templated sigs and breaking the required functionality templates on pages like A/VB. It happens frequently enough that if templated sigs were done away with it would have a noticeable effect on the administration pages at the very least. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:09, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Generally no because standard templates do that too, practically yes though. One user tried to use a templated sig to crash pages on load iirc because they allow basically unlimited size inclusions(to a point) they can easily be abused to break shit. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It should be noted that that problem has since been fixed.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not so much, just now it takes images I'm pretty sure. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:09, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Also, another note: just deleting the page doesn't solve the problem because there's nothing to stop someone just recreating it in their userspace. I'm actually currently considering writing some code so that my sig is substituted in on some pages and not on others...--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)

If anyone has any hints on how to do this without using parserfunctions then it would be much appreciated.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:13, 2 May 2011 (BST)

{{if equal}} should help but, I think you'd have to use the if template in your user preferences and would likely hit the 255 character limit. You'll want to play around with magic words that determine the namespace. UDWiki is namespace 4. The "ns" magic word you'd use is {{ns:4}} which produces UDWiki. That's probably a pretty good starting point. Basically a if statement that uses one sig if on ns4 and another sig if otherwise. It would be best I think if both sigs have their own template. ~ _{17:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

I think I've got something that works, using {{Switch}}. Code is located here: User:The General/sig/switch. I found that using the "if" statements resulting in the if templates themselves being substituted onto pages--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:16, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Testing. ~ 18:10, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Well that sort of works but the {{if equal}} template would need to be NOSUBST'd I think. ~ 18:12, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I tried using NOSUBST on the if equal template in my preferences and I hit the character limit. Maybe it can be trimmed down to work but in theory {{SUBST:NOSUBST|if equal|{{SUBST:ns:4}}|UDWiki|{{subst:User:Vapor/sig}}|{{SUBST:NOSUBST|{{SUBST:User:Vapor/sig}}}}}} should work. ~ _{18:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

do something helpfull for once :P

fix the image size in this template i made {{Kinsh}} --    bitch  22:36, 3 May 2011 (utc)

What's the problem? Looks fine to me. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:22, 3 May 2011 (BST)

While you're there, I think there's either a typo in the text of the template, or the template name.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:24, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Good catch. Fixed. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:51, 3 May 2011 (BST)

spelling and grammars is not my strong point.--    bitch  02:21, 4 May 2011 (utc)

go team friday night in syd

I won double tix to go team in sydney strike bar this Friday, all friends are working. Keen? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:48, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Not sure I can afford the travel; just had to get one bike fixed, and the other's being worked on at the moment. Although maybe I could ride… Hmm. Will think about it.
Also why haven't you added me on FB yet, you snob! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:54, 4 May 2011 (BST)

so picturing the two of you like this --    bitch  02:27, 4 May 2011 (utc)

where did you get that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revenant (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 May 2011 (BST).

I googled Bike Riding Australian fags. bingo!--    bitch  02:35, 4 May 2011 (utc)

WOW looking like that we'd fit in with the go team for sure! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:16, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Any other wiki stalkers interested in going? Grim, Boxy, lookin at you. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:17, 4 May 2011 (BST)

If it's not classical or comedy I don't see Grim even so much as listening to it, let alone leaving his hermit cave and cavorting with other human beings in meatspace. Dunno about The Box.
Pretty sure I can make it if I want to, just want to fit in as much as possible that I wanted to get done up there if I'm going. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:00, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Sorry, mate; checked my schedule and I'm flat booked-out this weekend. Definitely email The Box and see if he's keen, and FWIW I am sorry I can't make it this time. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:00, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Partyin' partyin' yeah!?--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:34, 5 May 2011 (BST)

On voting for you

I hope you don't mind my reasoning. --Visible One 07:06, 4 May 2011 (BST)

It would seem you've covered all bases! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:23, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Deleting Protections

What exactly were you doing there? Removing the link to Iscariot's blog and first name that you provided? How come all of a sudden? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:43, 4 May 2011 (BST)

I hope you know how to read logs. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 18:48, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Typo

Thanks. I put the c first, but it didn't look right, and I'm downstairs on IE, so I don't have spellcheck.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:57, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Welcome! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:09, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Wow

Voting for yourself on BP? Really thinks its going to be that close? Anyway, Im going to be sans l'ordinator for the 36 hours after generals promotion bid comes to fruition, and as our probable next corrupt overlord, I thought Id give you the heads up now. Cheers. --Rosslessness 10:42, 5 May 2011 (BST)

I prefer to lead by example – also, first in, best dressed!
I also coined a catchy slogan and made a handy "how-to-vote" section, in case people needed a hand. To quote Fighter, “I'm a helper!” ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:48, 5 May 2011 (BST)

signature

hey bro. Just a heads up that Template:Goonsig contains an image that doesn't comply with the WIKI LAW sig policy because that image is over 50kb.

I'm not sure if you use the image (I'm quite sure I've seen you sign with it occasionally but again I could be wrong) but as the sort of... 'brainchild' or organiser behind the goonsig, I'm giving you a heads up anyway. I've notified those who are using it too as per sig policy. Those who use the signature have a week to change it, I'll let the users of the signature sort it out with you I guess? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:14, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Except that it clearly says "555Manbabies.gif‎ (image/gif, 45 KB, looped, 20 frames, 0.4s)". On the image page. I dunno where you got over 50kb from, so am i missing something here, or have you made a mistake DDR? Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01:07, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Katthew fixed it very quickly and efficiently, so it's no longer an issue DW, everything is good now. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:47, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Excellent. And yeah, I signed with it a few times when I was testing it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:54, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Iscariot

“	I think you're barking up the wrong histories, when I left I don't remember asking for Ross et al to delete my user page, although it may have escaped my memory. What I did want deleting was User: Iscariot/Signature, which was done and then stupidly overridden by certain people trying to take a shot at me after I'd left.	”
—. <== DDR Approved Editor

Saving this here for archival reasons. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:14, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Just so you know...

...we don't delete pages we put on SD ourselves:

“	In the event of a sysop requesting Speedy Deletion, all the previous points will apply, excepting that a system operator other than the requester shall review and take action on the request.	”
—Speedy Deletions Intro

It be against teh roolz. -- Cheese 12:12, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Replied on Cheese's talk page.

WP:DRUNKEDIT

In Europe, alcolocks for cars are currently discussed. Not sure about the cars, but I'd strongly support alcolocks for computers As for Mehsconduct, I emphasized the Meh for a reason. The team is clearly split and undecided about the issue of off-site requests, so even if some tard actually brings up a case, you'd be extremely unlucky to receive as much as a confused soft warning. -- Spiderzed█ 13:30, 9 May 2011 (BST)

One reason I was so insistent is that he actually knows British law and I'd prefer to avoid Kevan/us having to deal with a(nother) real copyright case. Not that there'd be anything to dispute, a C+D would just about do it.
Also, why are the terminally sober so prejudiced against other states of consciousness? The Curse of Greyface, that's why! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:35, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, uhm, not really worried about someone suing ud for him posting stuff. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:33, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Actually

You reminded me. There's a better way. Just <Noinclude> older bot reports. That was they don't include on the inclusion of the section beyond as the words for the template call. If you subst: them then if we were to do that it would actually add to the filesize on the final inclusion. Saves more space AND allows us to keep the full list. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:25, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Good call! Not sure we need to keep it, though, since it's all in the deletion log. Unless we want it for Spambit Hunters or something? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:27, 10 May 2011 (BST)

I'd rather have it as something permanently linkable for standard users on A/M cases tbh. It's just easier to reference. If we do this I may consider adding anchors to the template for ease. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:42, 10 May 2011 (BST)

I've been meaning to add anchors to a lot of these templates. We still need to overhaul the CSS, too… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:11, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Hmm, I guess we can. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:32, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Got both. (And didn't even ban you!)

This will probably follow me throughout all of my tenure. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 12:29, 13 May 2011 (BST)

Wikifu question

Heya. I'm wondering what needs to be done in order to set up an image as a redirect, so that when you click on the image it takes you to a specified page on the wiki. I noticed you were doing something like this with those ubiquitous goon templates. The page I'm trying to fix is CAPD. You'll notice those fancy schmancy icons at the top? They used to redirect correctly before the wiki update but it seems that now they don't really work as I originally intended.

Sorry if this is out of left field. I noticed you were on and the wiki fu is strong with you.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 03:53, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Responded at User talk:Giles Sednik#Image links.

government

I didn't realise the notice at the top before I'd edited so I hope you don't mind me adding a couple of potential cats. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:25, 20 May 2011 (BST)

That's cool, dude. The reason I put that there was to stop people adding themselves or rearranging shit without decent justification/discussion. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:31, 20 May 2011 (BST)

History

Hey there my goond fellow! I was trying to look up my history of contribution and it appears that it only goes as far back as may 2008. I know I made more contributions then that. Is there another way to look it up?-- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 06:51, 20 May 2011 (BST)

No, the wiki's server history was wiped in 2008, so any older revisions or contributions were cleansed from the system.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 08:07, 20 May 2011 (BST)

That said, there are some ways… if you search for links to your userpage, you should find all your signed contributions, and if there's a specific page that you know you've contributed to a lot, such as Talk:Suggestions (as Developing Suggestions used to be known), you can oftentimes find at least a list of contributors via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and sometimes even some of your contributions if you're lucky. HTH. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:12, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Awesome, I forgot about that nailgun suggestion. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:22, 20 May 2011 (BST)

The General's bid

It's been 16 days since The General was nominated for sysop status. This is just a nudge. Have you heard from Ross lately? ~ _{16:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)}

	FREE COOKIES
	The General has given Revenant a bunch of cookies in order to encourage a fair and impartial decision

.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:04, 20 May 2011 (BST)

I truly wonder how long it would have taken if no one mentioned it :P -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:25, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Looks like Ross has been out for 12 days. May need to be a one-man decision.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 17:36, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Is that a good idea? If I recall correctly there was a one crat decision in the past, I think it was Boxy or Grim, but that was a rather open-and-shut bid, this one isn't. Thoughts? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:42, 20 May 2011 (BST)

I have mailed Ross. Give him a day at least before you jump the gun. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 18:27, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Much better idea. Nice job. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:00, 20 May 2011 (BST)

DDR did one, as did Cheese, and I'm sure there are others. However, it is still fairly rare. An amusing/interesting fact: There was originally only supposed to be one bureaucrat; but we (well, actually, I) screwed up the wording a bit....--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:05, 20 May 2011 (BST)

I mailed Ross (presumably) before SZ did (but after he reminded me via IRC that it was about to be due).
Ross said he was “going to be sans l'ordinator for the 36 hours after” The General's bid came due, so consider the bid's running time extended by at least that long. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:44, 20 May 2011 (BST)

I'll be the first...

...to congratulate you on a successful crat bid. now don't fuck up ~ _{22:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)}

and i'll be the first to see you burn in hell! :P--User:Sexualharrison22:35, 20 May 2011 (utc)

Hades, Sheol, Gehenna: which? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:07, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Thank you. You shall be spared. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:07, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Please don't :P. ~ _{22:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)}

Fine. Per specific request, you shall not be spared. Happy now? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:17, 22 May 2011 (BST)

I can slmost smell the liberty. Imma need an ointment for the shackle wounds, though. ~ _{23:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)}

XYZ.

[1] -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 06:58, 21 May 2011 (BST)

keep an eye on.

Thomasz33 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) & Thomasz34 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) stink of spambits or just a really stupid user making two accounts in under two minutes?--User:Sexualharrison14:20, 21 May 2011 (utc)

Checkuser shows they share the same IP address; it's Canadian, so not too likely to be a spambot. (Which reminds me, we should really start sending abuse reports to the ISPs involved.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:26, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Rev, you aren't actually meant to reveal checkuser info like this if they haven't done anything, but w/e.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 16:05, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Per policy, didn't reveal anything identifying, but can wipe that if you're worried. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:02, 21 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not particularly worried, but it's been ruled misconduct to even reveal that two users are the same user, even if you don't give any IP info. (Unless of course they've been doing vandalism and shit).--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:08, 21 May 2011 (BST)

In this case, I considered it worth confirming “on the record”, since they certainly appear to be alt accounts and had at that stage made no contributions. (CheckUser info expires after a week, IIRC, so we might not be able to confirm the latter account later.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:14, 21 May 2011 (BST)

I know, and personally, I think wiki-alts should always be disclosed, but what we're meant to do is just checkuser them and then not post it in the public domain, iirc.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:15, 21 May 2011 (BST)

I think with Tomasz33 and Thomasz34, it wouldn't have taken a mental giant to figure out that they are the same person, nor have there been efforts to hide the tracks between both wiki accounts. In the case that got you misconducted, Yon, the user didn't want to see the connection disclosed, and has actively asked me to take care of it because I know the wiki bureaucracy and the proper channels. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 21:26, 21 May 2011 (BST)

That's kind of bullshit, considering said user had that connection already revealed in the public domain.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:29, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Jesus titty fucking Christ Yon! just admit you were wrong and move on.--User:Sexualharrison22:12, 21 May 2011 (utc)

I was wrong, and I'm completely ready to admit that; I just don't want Rev Misconducted for it in the future, so I'm giving him fair warning just in case.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:22, 21 May 2011 (BST)

revz is smarter than that. :P --User:Sexualharrison22:23, 21 May 2011 (utc)

Puppies Policy

This policy has been passed with a majority and needs to be enacted. As Bureaucrat, it falls to you to promote User:A Box Full of Adorable Puppies to Bureaucrat and then demote the rest of the team including yourself.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 16:12, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Considering that any vote in the other categories would be "this is a joke policy" it actually didn't pass. It's about 3-4 keeps short of a 2/3rds majority iirc.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:21, 21 May 2011 (BST)

"The only valid voting sections are For and Against." Reading is good, too. I don't expect it to pass, but if Rev's going by meatpuppeting and stupid votes being a valid tactic (e.g. his BP bid) then he needs to carry it out.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:36, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Also, the "Whale's Vagina" header quite clearly says that it is for, rather than against.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:37, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Abloobloofuckingbloo. You're just mad people actually think Revenant's competent and no one likes you and want to blame it on "meatpuppet" bullshit. I suppose whatever helps you sleep at night, but it would probably be best for you if you come to terms with the fact that you're a fucking crybaby butthurt moron. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:07, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Hey, you voted for the policy too.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:11, 21 May 2011 (BST)

If it removes people like you from the wiki, I'm all for it. Of course that's not actually what I was talking about but that would require you to actually read and comprehend and let's face it, that's something you just aren't capable of. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:14, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Really? Fuck! I meant to vote for myself on that one.
Considering what happened last time someone tried to unilaterally enact a policy like this one, you'd better make sure a majority of the other bureaucrats approve. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 20:49, 21 May 2011 (BST)

You have two options: Do it or get Kevan to put in retroactive anti-Meatpuppetry legislation: The latter of which would mean resigning as crat.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:02, 21 May 2011 (BST)

For that crack, I'm demoting you first. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:04, 21 May 2011 (BST)

(Also, I hear reading comprehension is good, too.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:07, 21 May 2011 (BST)

"The person is implied to be analogous to a sockpuppet in function and goals, but a real separate person (i.e. "meat") rather than fictitious." So, basically, exactly what you did?--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:09, 21 May 2011 (BST)

The funny thing about that is he has shown he'll step in for something like that if he believes it to be serious. We also have that awesome Jorm precedent to lean back on for humorous PDs. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:33, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Then can somebody actually make the case, because if we're going to, we should probably do it now.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:35, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Technically speaking the "policy" was invalidated the moment it went to vote since the minimum three days discussion was ignored. ~ _{23:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)}

Hooray for technicalities. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:24, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Technically speaking, there is no rule stated that a policy must have three days of minimum discussion. As per How to Start a Policy Discussion: "The policy's talk page. People will be able to elaborate on the written draft, and add their opinions of what should be changed so this draft gets approved by the community. Any policy should remain at least 3 days under discussion before it goes for voting. Any discussion which doesn't go to voting in 2 weeks will be archived." Should ≠ Must. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:13, 22 May 2011 (BST)

As A Box Full of Adorable Puppies has not gone through the normal community approval process for system operator privileges, let alone bureaucrat privileges, I would be in dereliction of my duty as bureaucrat were I to enact this policy.

“	System Operators and Bureaucrats cannot assign promotions unless the request has gone through this page.	”
—UDWiki:Administration/Promotions

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:11, 22 May 2011 (BST)

I can understand not wishing to promote them, however, the idea of the policy was that it got rid of the current system of sysops and bureaurcrats in favor of a single person administration system. As such, it does not go through normal community approval process, because it is not dealing with the currently existing administration system. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:41, 22 May 2011 (BST)

I think you know where to go… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:06, 23 May 2011 (BST)

I thought we were arguing technicalities. :D --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:09, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Please show me on the doll where I touched y— err, where I specifically exhorted people to sign up solely to vote for me. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:24, 22 May 2011 (BST)

And while you're at it, why not give us your best shot at explaining this one away…

“	Yonnua Koponen is the greatest meatpuppeter of all time! --Sebalius 23:22, 5 July 2010 (BST)	”
—Mayor of Malton 2010 Election

Fuck knows. I'd guess somebody who was meatpuppeting in the Mayor election said it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 09:46, 22 May 2011 (BST)

And I'll cite This thread on your forum where you Once again pull people who wouldn't have voted over to the wiki to repeatedly vote for your candidate. I'd cite the thread on something awful, but I'm not playing my hand on that one yet.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 09:51, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Damn, glad I did what I had to do to counter Misanthropy in that fail bureaucrat bid. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:58, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Thank you for unwittingly proving my point: nowhere (on the cited links, or elsewhere) did I “specifically exhort people to sign up solely to vote for me” or anyone else. (“What is ‘reading comprehension’, Alex?”) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:51, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Where the fuck are you quoting that from? And while we're at it, why the fuck do you keep calling me Alex?--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:54, 22 May 2011 (BST)

6 comments up. “Who is the host of Jeopardy!, Alex?” ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:02, 22 May 2011 (BST)

I'll take a third option, thanks, Alex. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:25, 22 May 2011 (BST)

forced withdrawal precedent. I've protected the page since the voting has closed, but if no ops want to touch it by the end of the day I'll just cycle it as a withdrawn policy. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:22, 22 May 2011 (BST)

According to UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion: "This wiki attempts to work on the same guidelines as most wikis - policy is made by the users, not by the gatekeepers. In light of this, here is the place for people to discuss hot-topics regarding what we should consider acceptable and unacceptable. The community should keep track of what's going on here, and work to ensure that any guidelines or policy statements are indicative of the general mood described here." Technically, the policy discussion page states that policies are decided by the community and not by the sysops, and since there isn't a specific rule/guideline/policy/criteria for removing humorous policies (like we do for suggestions), so its removal shouldn't be allowed. There is a precedent of reverting a policy that changes mid-vote, but that doesn't invalidate the whole policy. If the user wanted the policy to change, then they could either withdraw it to change and cause a re-vote, or let it go through as originally written. Now, I could see an argument of Vandalism, as the creation of the policy could be argued to not be a good faith edit, however, I don't recall a specific policy that the creation of a policy like this violates (after all, the Stop Making Stupid Policies did not pass). If a ruling of vandalism is the case, then one could also argue this edit was not an edit in good faith, as the edit prior to it stated the intent to just mess with the proposed policy document instead of striking the policy (recall a recent case over messing with policy documents). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:13, 22 May 2011 (BST)

BOOM (never change, Akule) --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:37, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Arguing technicalities is my specialty. ;) --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:40, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Our precedent is shitting up admin pages? The right thing to do would have been take him to Vandal Banning but because we aren't robots or gargoyles all the time we sometimes enjoy an odd joke to carry out, even knowing the odd user will be around to claim some sort of legitimacy to the whole thing. And really? Are you really trying to liken my following on with the joke under the voting header, to completely fucking up the entire page even before he added the image (to the actual policy section I might add)? Because the notion is so fucking stupid that I'm not even going to justify it by addressing it beyond this post. For the record, I'm indifferent as to whether the policy passes or not, couldn't get much sillier around here anyways, but meh. It was just a joke, don't see why there's always someone who won't let something die. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:38, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Get off my lawn page, you hooligans! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:42, 22 May 2011 (BST)

is it just me, or did the text get smaller?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:04, 22 May 2011 (BST)

that's what she said... ow, wait, no, damn it!!! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 23:13, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Creating double redirects

I was just looking through Special:DoubleRedirects and it noticed that you seem to have edited User:God Damn Commies, User:GaleStormont and User:Ezcobra so that they redirect to themselves. I was just wondering if there was a reason for this?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:39, 23 May 2011 (BST)

He's clearly a monster. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:54, 23 May 2011 (BST)

How on earth did you escape? --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:01, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Me? The front door. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:02, 23 May 2011 (BST)

It puts the lotion on the skin or it gets the hose. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:10, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Clearly. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:14, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Brain fart. If you look at my other contribs at the same time, you'll see I was redirecting redlink userpages of active users to their talk pages, if not redlinks themselves. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:14, 23 May 2011 (BST)

OK, just wanted to check that you didn't have some sort of super-clever plan in mind that I was going to break by reverting .--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:51, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Notes on signatures

The signatures being used by members of The Dead are clearly intended to irritate and/or obfuscate who is who and frankly the crap makes editing pages far less pleasant. If you want to bring it up in the wiki admin area then do so, but I really don't give much of a crap. So far as I'm concerned it's improving the wiki. --Lord K 05:39, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Is it really that hard to tell who is who? Also, I too care so little about a thing that I go on to fix it multiple times and then whine about it on a sysop talk page.--ебут этом гомосексуальные земля́, ebut ėtom gomoseksual'nye zemlя́ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_{Retarded things go here -->} 2 3 4 User:MisterGame 06:04, 24 May 2011 (BST)

You're taking the WIKI LAW into your own hands. In other words, being a vigilante. This has never helped any wiki ever, and in fact, shits them up with massive edit wars. --Fjorn

I can't tell which one of these is you. Oh wait, perhaps they all are. --Rise|||||||||||||||||||||||||above 06:09, 24 May 2011 (BST)

God, fuck, I just want to grab your tubby, neckbearded head by your grotesquely-shaped ears and lick all those delicious tears right out of your piggy little eyeballs! I bet they taste like impotent rage and unresolved childhood issues! --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 06:16, 24 May 2011 (BST)

You irritate Lord Krustlebuttes for 1 abloobloobloos. They cannot deal with it. They cry more on the wiki. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 10:15, 24 May 2011 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#Lord_K

Regarding MisterGame: Would it be okay to change his signature once or twice since many people think his signature is obnoxious? I would change the User:MisterGame link to User:Thadeous_Oakley since he already took the time to make it seem like he's more than one user by having a user name that links to another user WITH THE EXACT SAME SHIT ON IT. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 10:31, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Never mind, He backpedaled. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 19:33, 24 May 2011 (BST)

How was the coup?

Anything I should care about? --Rosslessness 19:58, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Thank ye

I used your sig's code to help me change the font of my new sig. Couldn't figure out how to do it for the life of me. Granted now its a massive block of code that only the Goon sig would compare to if I had it turn my sig into normal wiki code. Criticize, clean-up, advice? and otherwise enjoy! Here she be all nice and shiney!       04:32, 27 May 2011 (BST)

sydney

I think I've mentioned this somewhere already, but Jon Lajoie is on his way to Sydney. If you can still get tickets, do it. I just saw his show last night and it rooled. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:34, 27 May 2011 (BST)

True story

Dermot, increasingly dissatisfied with survivor tactics including password sharing, and the ongoing inter survivor bickering with the rambos, left the survivor meta, who had been in Elstree and headed north with the idea of idling in Radlett.On the way I had a word with Kevan, and as I result my footprints were followed and I was nommed in Reap Street Fire Station [521,34]. He's still there. In many ways its my own fault. --Rosslessness 10:00, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters

I'm trying to upload a gif animated screenshot of the search rates back when the survivor percent was around 15%. It's and as you can see I'm getting an error even on the recent file that is less than 150kb. Any suggestions on how to fix it? -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 04:15, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Title for editing summary

Blah --Rosslessness 23:28, 3 June 2011 (BST)

You got a match. Or two, even. But nothing worthy of mentioning.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:32, 3 June 2011 (BST)

Blah --Rosslessness 23:36, 3 June 2011 (BST)

Revenant

Scheduled. We don't actually allow them on the wiki. Just thought I'd give you a heads up so you'd know why I deleted it. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:17, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Thank you: nice to know this place is still as anal-retentive as I expected. This goes on the to-do list. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:16, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Always is always will be until there's a massive change in the promoted users and policy development procedures. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:22, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Still trying this old one eh Revvie? Personally I'd like to see it go now too. It was my DDR that started this gayfest -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:25, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Only if I can have Donkey as a redirect to my userspace.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 11:31, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Will you start the discussion, or will I? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 18:28, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Either way, it should probably reference this discussion. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 20:39, 9 June 2011 (BST)

I have a few large assignments due soon so I won't be putting tooo much time into UDWiki atm, and even then I don't know if i'd really bother putting the vote up. I would vote for it to go if it were there but ATM the status quo isn't doing me any harm. I may have been kicked into apathy regarding them after that massive shitstorm that happened in 08 -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:54, 13 June 2011 (BST)

Either you start the process needed to remove the scheduled deletion of deleting user page redirects, or you accept it the way it is. Don't try to game the system by using an disambig instead. It's not even original, Karlsbad tried the same trick, and guess what, it got removed. No circumvention of the rules Rev, period. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:54, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Rules are only as valuable as the purpose they serve. It's also worth noticing that consensus can change over time. Karlsbad's would have been long ago (got a link, BTW?); try a more recent & useful precedent. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:01, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Also, I'd love to see you argue that providing useful links to people searching for a term constitutes bad faith. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:03, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Bad example. Not sure what Misanthropy was thinking, I suspect he meant it was a mainspace article which would be okay, but it was not, it's listed as a disambiguation page and not as a mainspace article. Remember that a disambig is basically an overview of conflicting redirects. As for Karlsbad, view the undeletion history here. As for good-faith, please don't start bullshitting me. We have a clear scheduled deletion on this and trying to bypass it does not constitute good-faith. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:22, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Nice try! Now let's look at why you're wrong: The deletion schedule is for redirects. A disambiguation page is not a redirect; it is a collection of similarly-named pages relevant to the subject. This is literally what disambig pages are for, and do not come under that schedule. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:44, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Le sigh. I could argue that a disambig does fall under that schedule since it's just an extra step in the redirect process but God knows you'd wouldn't quit. Why don't you just try to remove that scheduled deletion that you dislike so dearly? If you provided some good arguments I think you'd have a good case to push it through. Instead you seem more keen to find ways to get around established rules instead of changing them. Zucht. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:04, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Loophole abuse FTW! (Seriously, though, it's easier to work around a bad rule than it is to change it, and it's a good tactic to highlight exactly why a rule is bad.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:09, 12 June 2011 (BST)

I think I'll take a scrap from your play book and actually link to the dreaded wikipedia for once. You love wikipedia, right? Seriously, this can be considered bad-faith. I'd advise against doing it. Use the correct channels instead (Hint: discuss removing the schedule instead). -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:52, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Maybe just make a scheduled deletion request and get all your goon friends to meatpuppet it through lololololloolololololololol!--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 16:08, 12 June 2011 (BST)

which was rev's plan G--User:Sexualharrison16:23, 12 June 2011 (bst)

G, for Goon? Pfft, as if I label my plans. They're all given hash values and stored inside a single manila folder in random order, with the real plans outnumbered 4:1 by fakes. Good luck finding them!
(FYI, I've yet to post anything wiki-vote related to SA, as anyone with an account there can easily verify.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:14, 12 June 2011 (BST)

As a meatpuppet, I object to your insinuations that all meatpuppets vote the same way. --||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 18:21, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Glad to see you're learning! Nice to know my efforts haven't been completely in vain.
Quite simply, that does not apply, since Wikipedia runs on consensus and this place runs on WIKI LAW. Glad to see you're catching my point, though. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:10, 12 June 2011 (BST)

they only apply if I say them but they dont apply when someone uses them to try and call me out. Odd, but TBH the truth is that none of them apply? Maybe cause wikipedia runs on wikipedia and udwiki runs on udwiki? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:47, 13 June 2011 (BST)

Actually most all of them apply since there's pretty much one for anything. They're guideline articles that exist solely to give a more developed and reasoned stance to certain consensus arguments. As is though this doesn't really fall under, say WP:POINT, I disrupted him and basically triggered a discussion on redirects and disambiguation pages. More relevant to this particular discussion are WP:CCC and WP:Cheap while I get the feeling that Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. while relevant to past protests of this rule isn't quite the case here. For those that don't know Here are Relevant points of discussion that led to it being escalated to a scheduled deletion instead of a simple speedy deletion crit. Also found this--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:30, 13 June 2011 (BST)

No matter how great or wise they are they are used selectively by certain people as per their own interpretations of the situations which may be- and are probably- wrong interpretations. So, like how they are commonly pulled out of context in a fray to feign legitimacy of someone's views, I tend to exercise my right to completely disregard them in any situation, whether they support my opinions or not, and rely on the context of the situation at hand rather than a pre-written wikipedia message that some random guy deemed necessary to bring up. Good to see revenant doing the 'disregard' thing too, though only when used against him, but its at least halfway towards what I'd ideally like seeing.

As for the redirect discussion, I don't have much to say. I'm indifferent on the whole thing though if pressed I'd see the rule gone, but yeah I don't really care as not having userpage redirects isn't hurting anyone. But yeah, I didn't come here to enter the userspace redirect fray or I'd have addressed it. Just wanted to add onto rev's call on thad, to which I reply, you're the one disregarding use of them at will, so I'd argue that you're the one learning! *smug* -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:28, 13 June 2011 (BST)

Actually this looks like it could make an interesting arbitration case if either of you are interested in pursuing it. I'd be more than glad to arbitrate. Also worth adding that Disambiguation pages may have reason to be considered as soft redirects. All of that being said it does look that the consensus has significantly changed since the original cases that led to this schedule and it's certainly worth giving it a second look.

The ironic thing? If the scheduled deletion is revoked there'd be a pretty legit argument behind keeping the disambig page there over a redirect to rev's page. Ouch. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:28, 13 June 2011 (BST)

So...

Any particular reason why you felt the need to restrict my access on the PKA boards? It couldn't possibly be because I publicly disagreed with you, cos that would be a rather personal & petty reason, and you're above all that, eh? Enighten me please if you would, thank you. ~ Kempy 

“YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |

 

22:24, 11 June 2011 (BST)

Strangely, the same happened over night to all Cobra members registered on the PKA after I had disagreed with you.

“	Recruitment Policy: Must be a member of an independent PKer Group.	”
—PKA wiki page

“	The problem in the past has been the bounty hunters turning us against one another. We've been unable to see the truth, because we've been fighting for ten squares in a suburb - our suburbs, our little piece of suburbs. That's crap, brothers. The suburbs is ours by right because it's our turn. All we have to do is keep up the general truce. We take over one suburb at a time. Secure our malls, secure our suburbs, because Malton is all ours.	”
—PKA wiki page

I'm sure you can explain how banning the currently 2nd largets PKer group is in line with the conception of the PKA, rather than something done to push through unrelated personal agendas. (Oh, and as a bonus, even our member Cutey got restricted, who hasn't even ever posted anything on the PKA apart from her access request. You believe in punishment by association, eh?) -- Spiderzed█ 22:48, 11 June 2011 (BST)

I've banned nobody; I've merely removed security access from those who've opted out of the current operation. It will be restored after said operation's completion.

Bear in mind that I'm not sure exactly how user masks are set up (IPB forums are fucking awkward with permissions management), so it's possibly I've inadvertently placed more restrictions that I was aware of. What can you see/not see?

It was not my intent to remove right of reply, merely to comply with your wishes. If you don't want to discuss tool usage (which apparently neither of you do, as you did not reply to my most recent replies of over a week ago), clearly it would be of no use to continue said discussions. Or have I misinterpreted you? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:01, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Also, why post here rather than sending me an email reply or, y'know, a post or PM on the forum? You're lucky I happened to be checking the wiki. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:58, 12 June 2011 (BST)

You had PMed me the last time on June 8. The answer is in my PM outbox since June 10, and has been unread by you since then. First, it's not my fault if you don't read your PMs, and second, a week wouldn't have passed until it is June 15. Would have PMed you again, but looking at how long it was unread, I figured it might be better to pester an active crat on his talk page. Additionally, I figured you would just have the PKA's best interests at heart, and thus not have a problem defending your decision in a place where the broader PKer public (whose interests the PKA serves) can see it, rather than behind closed door.
As for access, I'm limited to

• General Alliance Info
• The Killers' Den
• Public Forum
• Murder Nucleus
• Garbage
• PKA Archives

• United PKers of Rolt Heights

Seem to me just to be the public boards.
And yeah, while we might not be part of the current op, there's still a.) the possibility of a separate op organized by Cobra that needs to be advertised by us on the PKA and b.) my involvement in ZHU, which has often been enhanced by screenshots and hints from the PKA. Given the area the current op is staged in, I have no doubt there will be zerging by the local survivor population, zerging which's detection might depend on another set of eyes seeing it in time. Would be a shame if the hints would be seen with weeks of delay and if the window of opportunity would close before the op's end, wouldn't it?
Plus, there is no precedent of people being restricted from the PKA but for the most severe reasons (like being caught zerging). Even in the ACC hunt, members of their alt PKer group had still full access to the PKA and had regularly logged in, and their interests were much more conflicted than our mere disinterest. Do you really trust ACC more than us or Kempy? -- Spiderzed█ 12:23, 12 June 2011 (BST)

OK, that mask is definitely not working as intended. I'll take a look and fix.
I had to take a look across a bunch of forums before I figured out which you meant. FYI: black on dark blue is not good design and meant I had no idea I had a new PM because I couldn't read the notification text. Might want to look at that. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:19, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Also, I don't trust ACC at all, as I don't know them at all. If you could please confine your criticism of my administrative choices to the times when I was actually in an administrative position, this discussion will be a lot more fruitful. (That said, I don't care what alts somebody has, as long as they aren't zerging or passing on classified information from their alt access. I'm sure you can see how this situation differs.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:40, 12 June 2011 (BST)

For the sake of clarity: I was referring to replies in the PKA thread. Which, I might add, is still open and awaiting reply, unlike the thread on the Cobra forums, which was closed by one of your mod staff. Also, again, apparently unlike Cobra, I'm not afraid of having people retain the right of reply. (I've also yet to ban anyone in this affair, which is more than can be said of the other parties.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ

seems I've had my access changed also? wtf? like I've have any involvement other than having an alt in cobra?--User:Sexualharrison13:35, 12 June 2011 (bst)

Wow, you too? That is growing more and more mongtarded. -- Spiderzed█ 14:00, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Bwuh? OK, I need to look at the admin/mod logs, something is not right. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:19, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Harrison, I can't even find your account. OK, found it. Permissions look normal to me. Screenie? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:30, 12 June 2011 (BST)

i used to have diplomat status. or more access.--User:Sexualharrison22:42, 12 June 2011 (bst)

There are literally only two levels of access above Member (PKer): Admin, and Project Mayhem which I just created as a security group because using passwords for subforum access is retarded. (Gods I hate IPB.) “You decide your own level of involvement.” ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:13, 12 June 2011 (BST)

well than i'm insulted and want full access i have always kept a tight ship. and have never ever shared info i was privy too.--User:Sexualharrison23:27, 12 June 2011 (bst)

So to be clear: You want access to an operation area that makes use of a tactic your group has apparently decided it doesn't want a bar of? I've not given Cobra members access specifically because of Spiderzed's statement that Cobra members are banned from using it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:41, 13 June 2011 (BST)

i have never role played on the forum or in the meta. if I read or find out something that others are not supposed to know. even if they are a member of one of the groups that I'm in and that info will help or protect them I don't share that info. cause that would be multi abuse. something i take very seriously. I left groups over it. i think i have proved my trustworthiness over the years that I have been playing this game and dealing with you. especially since I try and stay out of most the politicking and inter group drama. i haven't have even logged on to the PKA in months. and wouldn't have but i was curious to see what all the noise was about. yes I am a member of cobra, but i'm also a individual who can think for himself. I've also had alts with redrum, CK and other PKer groups.. maybe i wanted one of my alts to be involved? maybe I wanted to check out the scrip for myself? etc etc.--User:Sexualharrison12:59, 13 June 2011 (bst)

Bear in mind that 1) your permissions were never restricted (nor would they have been), and b) I literally (as in, really) only made the group hours ago in response to Kempy & Spiderzed's complains that their access was broken, (and it's got nothing substantial in there yet). So, as you can see, I actually haven't posted much at PKA, mostly due to lack of positive (or any apart from the usual vocal minority ) response… there's more at Red Rum, which I'm fairly sure you still have access at? Let me know if not and I'll fix you up there, too. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:09, 13 June 2011 (BST)

damn straight. stop acting like a douche. spidey and kempy are two of the more reasonable people on here. all of you should take a step back and act like grown ups.--User:Sexualharrison13:20, 13 June 2011 (bst)

In order to cease said behaviour I would first have to start.
If anything I'm a dick or (cl)asshole. Reasonable people disagree just as much (if nor more than) unreasonable. (Because there are so many more ideas to debate!)

Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?
The Dude: No, you're not wrong.
Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?
The Dude: You're not wrong Walter. You're just an asshole.
Walter Sobchak: Okay then.

Have you read the thread to which I was referring? It's now in the public section, so that the peanut gallery can continue to watch… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:42, 13 June 2011 (BST)

While we're talking about correcting forum access: I'm pretty sure than I'm a member of Red Rum; and Red Rum is part of the PKA, right? So, could I get access to all this planning that's going on?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:22, 14 June 2011 (BST)

Absolutely! Just follow the yellow brick road. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:43, 14 June 2011 (BST)

douche is a broad term. and that wall of shit above.. douche and over the top--User:Sexualharrison02:11, 14 June 2011 (bst)

YOURE NOT WRONG (why do i read this shit) --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:13, 14 June 2011 (BST)

It's easier than updating your site? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:09, 14 June 2011 (BST)

Phallus (or schmuck, which is an awesome word) is not only a specific term, but actually better at the job than a douche, to boot. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:09, 14 June 2011 (BST)

Hence why I'm doing to "contact Revenant" part! So, could you add me to the "Red Rum" group?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:44, 14 June 2011 (BST)

You do realise there's a thread specifically dedicated to this on the forum in question, right? Your account was set to Non-PKA, I'm guessing from when Red Rum left the PKA back in '07. So, welcome back! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:04, 14 June 2011 (BST)

i can agree with that.. you are a schmuck. carry on. and why is there no. """this user is a schmuck""" template?--User:Sexualharrison14:08, 14 June 2011 (bst)

You haven't made me one yet? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:42, 14 June 2011 (BST)

Cough

Haggers' bid ended yesterday. Just giving you a heads up.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:17, 24 June 2011 (BST)

You want some medication for that cough? I know a great doc who could prescribe some laudanum… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:33, 24 June 2011 (BST)

My A/RE is up too, pretty sure. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:14, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Was just looking at that… my input may have to wait until I feel less like my head is trying to kill me. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:38, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Right. Discuss. Thoughts? --Rosslessness 08:54, 24 June 2011 (BST)

promote and ban him. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:27, 25 June 2011 (BST)

You're head still seems to be attacking you. So Here's my thoughts. DDR, yes, good support other than Sonny (wow) and Karek, and DDR seems to be discussing the reasons with Karek, which is a lot better than some sops deal with the situation.

Hagnat, no. concern from both established users and trolls about his occasional fuck the rule attitude, random policy making, lack of administrative edits, lack of edits and the fact that revolving door policies aren't cool.

I await your input. --Rosslessness 08:40, 26 June 2011 (BST)

A/D Banana Tactics

Have removed the template for now from your vote, because it messes with the numbering of subsequent votes. As I know no other quickfix (tables don't play nice with hash keys) and and it impedes the functionality of an admin page, I considered this as the best course to take, despite involving a (minor) bit of impersonation. -- Spiderzed█ 22:08, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Fucking tables! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:58, 27 June 2011 (BST)

Barrista

Just give it up dude. Either make the effort to revoke the rule or just leave it. Don't go around just breaking the rules, it never achieves anything. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:44, 8 July 2011 (BST)

And this is at least the third time you've been told too so next time I'll probably end up taking you to A/VB -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:09, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Sorry, uhm, what is the problem with that? It's a redirect pointing to the standard resource for an ingame udt tool.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:15, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Are you serious. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:20, 8 July 2011 (BST)

User:Aichon.... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:21, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Doesn't matter, common sense exemption. Aichon made it in his namespace because it's his project, much like swier with project imagine( the source of things like iwitness, dirt:nap, etc.) --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:24, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Erm, no, it does matter. The rule is very specific and we've never let exemptions exist in the past. I literally can't understand your line of thought here, me telling someone off for trying to work around the rule for the 094280th time is uncalled for apparently -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:13, 8 July 2011 (BST)

To be fair, inexperience users aren't likely to know off-hand that Aichon is responsible for Barrista. Given that it's a very likely search term, I'd be in favour of this one. 13:53, 8 July 2011 (BST)

What is there to not understand. The rules are clear, that's how it's been since the rule was made. If you want exceptions, get it revoked or modified. Or move the article in the mainspace (where it belongs if you think it has value to the UD community) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:00, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Exceptions only lead to further encouragement of people seeking to push the boundaries of what would be allowed, especially with users like Revenant who constantly skates on a tin line. As DDR for the rest.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:09, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Got to agree with Karek and Mis on this one. Aichon's user-script collection is well-known even outside of this wiki, and includes many very popular scripts (including Barrista). Search isn't a viable substitute, since userspace is unchecked by default, and since casual users can't be expect to check it (especially if they don't know to search there to begin with). -- Spiderzed█ 16:48, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Let me know when common sense prevails over bureaucracy on this wiki. The only exception to userspace redirects are those to Kevan's userspace. All others are scheduled deletion fodder. Keep it as a redirect to a mainsapce article (as I have done) or do as DDR subgested in the first place and push for reform. Breaking rules solves nothing. ~ _{17:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)}

Shall we get our torches and pitchforks ready?       14:11, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Yes, because apparently everyone has forgotten both what scheduled deletions are and why we have them. Protip: they're not rules prohibiting types of pages, they exist solely to benefit maintenance tasks like deleting vandalism or archiving pages. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:58, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Went ahead and recreated it as a redirect to External Links#Collections. There is a nice link to Aichon's namspace and Barrista is the second on the list. Compromise enough? ~ _{16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)}

It sure is better than being unfindable at all by default search. -- Spiderzed█ 16:48, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Thank you for once again being one of the few non-completely-anal-retentive-and-retarded sysops around here. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:18, 8 July 2011 (BST)

You're welcome.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:19, 8 July 2011 (BST)

As are you! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:20, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Thank you for doing the right thing in the first place, something I would have easily been capable of doing if I researched the options properly and wasn't so lazy I had to try and break the rules. again. I didn't realise that's what non-completely-anal-retentive-and-retarded meant. Oh and also it's something a normal user could have done, no idea why a sysop had to have done it -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:39, 9 July 2011 (BST)

And seriously, I am following the rules. They are there and they are black and white. Don't fucking cry about me being the sysop to do my job and enforce them, maybe you should be looking at your own behavior before being a cunt about the one guy who has in his job description to deal with your shit sometimes (and actually ends up doing it rather than ignoring it). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:43, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Laziness is one of my prime virtues! (The others being Impatience and Hubris.) And AFAIK it's not actually a rule, it's a “precedent” set by retards. Even if it were, just the fact that something is a rule (or law) does not necessarily make it a good rule (or law). I find that understanding a rule and why it exists leads to far better outcomes than mindlessly either following or breaking rules simply because they are rules.
Deleting things is by definition not constructive. You're following the letter of the rules but completely neglecting the wiki spirit in doing so. Too long staring into the void? Beware of following in footsteps… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:08, 9 July 2011 (BST)

No, it's not a precedent, it is a rule. Here is where the rule exists, set by the retards, the community you became a sysop to apparently serve. Beyond that I have nothing to say except make a note that you are yet again complaining about the rule itself, and the implementation of such a rule, without doing anything to change the status quo of how the rule is enforced. The way I enforce the rule is the way every sysop between late-2008 and now has enforced it, and I'm being consistent with that. You're the only person that's had a real issue with it up to now so don't try and put me on the back foot here. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:19, 9 July 2011 (BST)

You know damn well that deletions schedules ARE NOT RULES. They're a tool to help us maintain the wiki. In this deletion schedule's case specifically it was blatantly made for types ofuserpage redirects like DDR and kevan not redirects to actual content pages. Stop abusing it to make some shitty personal point. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:07, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Are you literally incapable of understanding this? It is a RULE that has been treated like this SINCE IT WAS MADE. You and Rev are the only ones looking for exceptions, not me, and exceptions you will NOT get until you actually amend the rule. IT is not fucking hard. Holy fucking shit. And this only got personal when Rev started making it personal. I'm just being CONSISTENT. Try it sometime, seriously, it might make you less tiresome to deal with. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:16, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Seriously this rule is so fucking clear it's hurting my head just having to deal with this shit. You both know the rule, you KNOW the RULE, so fucking abide by it until it's changed, preferably by either of you instead of doing what you're doing right now, which is whinge your fucking labias off until someone else does. Holy fuck. So not in the mood for this, especially when it's been fixed to a perfectly apt and manageable solution -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:20, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Well.. lets go down to the letter of the law here. It states exactly "User page redirects in the main space should be delete on sight as crit 3 or 9 (excluding those redirecting to Kevan)." This refers to criteria which are reasons not rules. Secondly, it said user pages not user-sub pages. Your not the only one who can grasp at straws. Finally, Isn't it the practice of this wiki when concerning deletions that if there is a dispute between whether a page should be kept or deleted it is put to vote and that is how the decision is made?       20:31, 9 July 2011 (BST)

The criterion for speedy deletion and scheduled deletion are voted upon, and therefore considered canon, or rules if you will; not just merely guidelines to be followed or ignored on a whim. ~ _{20:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)}

Eh, I show my ignorance all the time. Still isn't it normal practice to vote on a page if the deletion is validly questioned? I might be assuming again and making an ass out of myself.       21:43, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Its ok to be ignorant of the wiki rules. One must be somewhat sadistic to learn the ins-and-outs of wikilaw, which is to say that most of the people contributing to this discussion are sadists. In short, to question the validity of a page deleted under scheduled criterion is to question the validity of the criterion itself. Voting to ammend scheduled deletion criterion has passed before and if all goes well it may happen again. I'm not against reform, but as always, I'd prefer to see it done with some civility and tact. ~ _{22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)}

MS is correct. To enforce a rule without understanding the context it exists in and the problem it was created to use usually results in bureaucratic abuse. (c.f. PATRIOT Act and numerous “anti-terrorism” laws all over the globe.)
The scheduled deletion was voted in to prevent “vanity pages” such as Rosslessness and AHLG. This is a baby and bathwater type deal. These pages do no harm and serve a useful purpose in making users/characters easier to find. (Diskspace = cheep!) Of course, if there is any other possible claim to the page name, then it should be aggressively followed up; for example, as DDR pointed out, the two groups I put on the on the Revenant disambiguation page that I created certainly deserve to be represented, although IMO as inactive groups they do not deserve equal billing.
That said, that's a whole 'nother debate which I don't have time to spearhead right now, so I am glad that my actions have served to spur discussion on this issue. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:03, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Keep qq'ing

I can't quite hear your tears.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:59, 8 July 2011 (BST)

There'd be a reason for that. 23:00, 8 July 2011 (BST)

	AbLooBLooBLoo
	Notice: Yonnua Koponen needs to Deal With it.

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:04, 8 July 2011 (BST)

	AbLooBLooBLoo
	Notice: Revenant needs to Deal With it.

Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:11, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Oh snap! I see what you did there! Taking my template and using it back against me… truly, I have misunderestimated your combative skills, to my own great detriment! However shall I recover from this devastating turn of events?

Oh wait

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:15, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Sucks to be you.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:17, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Please stop projecting, needing to wear a tinfoil hat to keep out others' emotions gets tiresome. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:23, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Ergo docem etula?--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:31, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:11, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina. -- Spiderzed█ 00:22, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Om nom nom.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:22, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. ← The only “qq'ing” I will be doing. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:36, 9 July 2011 (BST)

QQing is the best term. Haven't heard it since I stopped playing dota years ago. best -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:58, 11 July 2011 (BST)

THIS SECTION ABOUT ME (THE BEST PERSON) ((KATTHEW))

Thank you for reminding me that this wiki still freaks out about girls like a bunch of 7-year-old boys being told they have cooties, you are a peach <3 <3 <3 --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン ( ビープ ビープ) @ 04:05, 11 July 2011 (BST)

Couldn't possibly be because you're a freak (typical of a goon on this wiki to blame any sort of hostility onto one tiny irrelevant fact) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:51, 11 July 2011 (BST)

Oh, please, go right ahead and tell me more about how women are "freaks" when they don't act like demure little housewives. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン ( ビープ ビープ) @ 13:11, 11 July 2011 (BST)

That I won't do, because I don't believe it. What I do believe is if you're serious about those last two posts then you have an inferiority complex that I don't think you should have. Just my two cents though, you'd know more about the way you're treated as a woman than I would, though I don't think the recent A/PM is a good demonstration of that. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:38, 11 July 2011 (BST)

You're a fucking retard, DDR. hth. - Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15:13, 11 July 2011 (BST)

I'm sure it's not cause I'm retarded or stupid but because of some small minority i happen to ethnically or socially belong too. yeah, I'll roll with that and assume all insults coming my way are because of that regardless of validity or logic -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:31, 11 July 2011 (BST)

You don't belong to any minority, and therein lies the issue. If you did, you would probably be able to see what's going on. As it stands, you're a jackass who assumes that life for everyone has to be as awesome as it is for you. Oh, and being a wikilawyering sperglord doesn't count as a minority, before you start talking about how nerds are the truly oppressed in today's society. You nauseate me on a primal level. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン ( ビープ ビープ) @ 15:51, 11 July 2011 (BST)

I do belong to a couple of minorities actually, and before you ask I'd rather not say just now, which may prove your point somewhat. and I have no issue with being a nerd, no. And I have no issue with nauseating you on any level. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:56, 11 July 2011 (BST)

Sure, I'll give you some time to scour Wikipedia for some "inoffensive" minorities you can claim to belong to. It's the least I could do in this situation, and frankly that's all you warrant. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン ( ビープ ビープ) @ 15:59, 11 July 2011 (BST)

Thanks. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:08, 11 July 2011 (BST)

You are most welcome! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:49, 11 July 2011 (BST)

Poke.

You've been dead for a week, so I'd though I'd throw up a reminder about the A/PM discussion that will shortly be undertaken. --Rosslessness 20:19, 21 July 2011 (BST)

But without Rev, YOU ARE THE LAW.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:58, 21 July 2011 (BST)

I am disappointed by your lack of the TEMP LATE. --Rosslessness 21:04, 21 July 2011 (BST)

Your lack of template is... disturbing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:36, 22 July 2011 (BST)

Double Poke

Right they're both over. Firstly, Mis. Thoughts? --Rosslessness 13:00, 23 July 2011 (BST)

He hasn't made an edit in nine days. Precedent indicates you should probably go ahead and make the call yourself, if not now, then within the next day. Rev already voiced his support for both candidates, so you can work with that and assume that unless he changes his stances the decisions are going to fall to you regardless. That said, it would be nice to give him a chance to dissuade you from any vetoes you may be considering, but if you feel the outcomes are clear, there's no reason to tarry. —Aichon— 01:39, 25 July 2011 (BST)

Triple Poke

I'll wait until friday, and then make decisions on my own then, unless you're active in the mean time. Thanks. --Rosslessness 16:22, 25 July 2011 (BST)

A fair assessment, I'll do them, you continue to vomit incessantly. --Rosslessness 08:25, 28 July 2011 (BST)

A/RE

Thoughts? --Rosslessness 22:55, 30 July 2011 (BST)

DEMOTE THE CUNT... OBLOOO BLOO BLOO --hagnat 23:01, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Axe

Looks pretty straightforward to me. I'm for keeping him. You? -- boxy 07:16, 22 October 2011 (BST)

Orphaned Images

File:PageMoveExample.png which you uploaded is currently unused and is subject to deletion if it is older than two weeks. If you wish to ensure that it remains on this wiki then you will need to ensure that it is included in at least one page on this wiki..--A Helpful Little Bot 08:32, 31 July 2011 (BST)

Zounds!

how did this happen? Too much text-wall? ~ _{14:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)}

I believe so. It's happened before – on this very page, even. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:08, 24 August 2011 (BST)

That was when I added goatse wasn't it? 01:25, 24 August 2011 (BST)

Crat election tie

Looks like its going to be on you to decide who gets promoted. For the record, my support is still behind Boxy 100%. I don't see a see a real reason for much fanfare. Just promote the crunt. I'd rather steal your seat next election anyway XD. ~ _{00:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)}

:3 --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:32, 29 August 2011 (BST)

A/DM

I take it that you agree to process Yon's demotions request? -- boxy 12:37, 1 September 2011 (BST)

Ross

Time is up for Ross's reevaluation. Ticks all the boxes for me -- boxy 13:38, 18 September 2011 (BST)

RHO

Just a heads-up that from Saturday on, he is due for an activity warning by a crat. -- Spiderzed█ 21:44, 22 September 2011 (BST)

A/M

It's only discussion relevant to the determination of misconduct. Not spamming the ruling section. See relevant examples, we've got established precedent of the rule being based on what is needed to help resolve the case not what anyone feels like saying regarding the case. We've drawn that line on more than a few high profile cases/incidents. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:20, 13 October 2011 (BST)

No dispute about the ruling section, but the Misconduct page guidelines state that all discussion is supposed to go on the Misconduct page. If that is no longer the case, then that section should be updated. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:52, 13 October 2011 (BST)

It's long been the case that that rule only applies to commentary relevant to determining the case, as common sense would dictate. Otherwise the interpretation being suggested would have had people moving discussion about the page or about things like the harassment rule only A/M simply to cause a disruption. The wording may need some slight clarification for those intentionally lacking in that area though. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:14, 13 October 2011 (BST)