User talk:Iscariot

The Talk Page of Iscariot

By posting here you agree to and accept the following rules. The Rules: 1. Post new comments at the top using a level 2 header. 2. Post all comments in correct English and grammar. This means real English, not the bastardised forms from the colonies. 3. You will not be a moron. Seriously, you're supposed to be a human being, act like it here please. 4. You will sign your posts in the conventional manner, this means with your own signature and with a datestamp. Templated signatures may be used without restriction provided they do not negatively impact the operation of this page. 5. Using the "+" button is not a good idea. I hate scrolling to the bottom of the page (talk pages get very long) and your reply will be ignored on principle. If my attention is required for something or is a procedural message, kindly place it at the top of the page in accordance with rule 1. These rules apply without exception to any page in my userspace, that's any page that begins User:Iscariot or User talk:Iscariot. This means you shouldn't go hunting for other pages to just be annoying. Ha Now see, he didn't say he did not want the arrow link. I win first because I came up with the idea.-- SA 01:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC) I have to show all you kids how shit works, don't I? All right, stop. Collaborate and listen. 01:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, look at that. It edits MY header now, you cunt. >:) -- SA 01:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC) I see what you did there... I have it saved in a .txt >:) -- SA 00:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC) I smell imminent censorship, I hate censorship. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Group listing I swear they shouldn't be listed as historical if they haven't passed voting?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC) I just checked the Historical group page, and it confirms that they go on to the listing after passing the community vote.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Historical does not equal historic. For years historic groups have been listed on suburb pages without trouble or needing historical status. You think someone requesting promotion might take the time to understand the history of the community and its precedents. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Aren't you opening the floodgates there? What stops countless trenchcoater or other groups from spamming the historic group suburb section? --Thadeous Oakley 17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC) I had nothing to do with opening the floodgates, I'm just stopping someone pick on a group he doesn't like. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC) I'm completely indifferent to the group. The facts of the matter are that they shouldn't be able to enter a category without vote, especially since they weren't even present in the suburb when they were active.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC) I have some serious doubts about your story, Iscariot. To my knowledge, you need to be pass historical vote first. Second opinion plz. --Thadeous Oakley 17:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC) If this is what I think this might be about, listing groups as historic on the suburb pages is an entirely different process to getting voted as a "historical group". Suburb listings reflect the groups who were locally historic in small ways, but who didn't make a big impact on the game as a whole. The category "historical groups", and the subsequent voting process, are for those who made a game-wide impact. For example, DHPD, if their time comes, might not make the vote as they're very regional and limited in scope, but will assuredly be listed under their home suburb for the work they do there. So now you know, half the battle, blah-dee-blah. Also, ninja-ed by Rooster, who appears to be disproving my point. Am I wrong? I could be wrong. 17:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC) TA-DAH!!! Mis has the correct! Groups that have been important to suburbs, but would not pass historical voting due to their lack on impact on the game in general have always been allowed to be entered in that section to commemorate their history in the area. Now if some people want to change that, I'm happy with that.... BB2 went through fifty-three suburbs, they best get started.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC) The sidebar is intended for groups who have passed voting, mismatches in the terms can be considered an error in my part in the template's creation (though personally, I consider historic to mean of importance in history, and historical to mean just any history, although I think dictionaries tend to agree they're interchangable) but the intention if definitely for groups who've passed voting. Change the wording to historical if it irks you. --  RoosterDragon  17:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC) As rooster. look at Kempsterbank The intro mentions pretty much every group thats had an influence on the area. There is no need for detelux to be in the sidebar. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC) As these two fine gentlemen above me, also the fact that the group that I removed was not locally historical anyway, so even by your definition, it shouldn't be there. I'm removing it again.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC) *Shudders* I will offer to represent TZH. I have a Philosophe Knight and a death cultist and could win this case entirely in TZH's favour in five minutes. You don't really want to do that, do you? D: --Janus talk 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Yes. I'm not saying I like them, I don't, I think they're idiotic zergers without any class or taste. However this isn't Brainstock, Barhah or my own personal site where they can be banned on sight, this is the only official resource this game has and they deserve the same rights as every other group that appears in this wiki. I'm not going to allow them to be done over due to a majority dislike of them and their own naivety about the rules. It's that kind of double standard that's got the wiki into such a fucked up state going way back to the survivor dominance of this place from its inception. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. :P Disambiguations are evil! Please defeat them? --Janus talk 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC) You can go in and kill that one all by yourself if you want, however since I won't let anyone alter the Culture Tour I might be the single force to keep some disambigs in play until the end of time :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC) All my work will be useless then.. :'( Oh, I also stumbled upon this. I feel nostalgic. Maybe. --Janus talk 23:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Tee hee!-- SA 00:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Image Iscariot, my watch list said that you edited the Nov1609.jpg that I uploaded today. Just checking to see if everything was alright and I did anything wrong.--Zaphord 06:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Nothing wrong, we just like to categorise the images as they are uploaded. It is convenient if users categorise them themselves but it's such a rarity we don't really mind. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC) It's amazing how people speak for me on my talk page.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC) We all know that letting you speak for yourself just gets you into trouble =D --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Haha! Right, thanks. I'll be sure to catergorise my future uploads--Zaphord 01:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC) You catagorized my image before I could. :( -- SA 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Arbitration It's been 2 weeks since anything substantial has happen on that "case". Maybe it's time to accept that there is a slight yet tiny possibility that you were, well how should I put it, wrong. Time for withdrawal and archival, mmkay? --Thadeous Oakley 18:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC) shakes head --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)- Nope, still continuing the case and disputing both your rulings. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Hey, you. Yeah, you Psst. I got a little bored and fixed your image with the new-style (Post 8th-Edition) frame, and templating fixes for the rules text. I do believe that qualifies for an owed pint, you rascal. 05:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Go blame Anime, he did it, the only proper CCG I played seriously was B5, because it was awesome. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Apologies Well I'm sorry I stood up to a rude editor here. Fine, feel free to delete my suggestion. He insulted me outright, I retorted calmly. If the only way to win a dispute here is by silencing the opposition, then so be it. I'm sorry I tried to get involved.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RaidenMachina (talk • contribs) at an unknown time. You acted inappropriately and rudely to rightful criticism, you were anything but calm. I also doubt that you are a paramedic as you claim, as my experience with people who actually save lives teaches that people like that don't go around invoking their status to passively aggressively belittle those they disagree with. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I felt that I was defending myself, but if you feel different, than I can only accept that. And I actually am a paramedic, well rookie but I still get to do stuff. The only reason I mentioned it is because I don't appreciate people who talk down to others over an editing flaw. But no loss, I know what I know and that is all that matters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RaidenMachina (talk • contribs) at an unknown time. One of my bestest friends is a paramedic. He's a lot calmer than you.-- SA 15:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Irony No, I couldn't think of anything to write there. Your comment is now protected for all time. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC) The sig fixing Thanks for your help Iscariot, it looks much better now (and works too!) One day I'll get the hang of this Wiki business...   URGGGGGGGHTalk PSYCHOUTTalk STAN SATANTalk 14:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC) You're on fire tonight! Well done, really. Sometimes, I have to say, i don't like you, but your mastery of comebacks on the suggestion system is simply brilliant. Wonderful. :D --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC) And just to make sure you don't let your head get too big, I'll throw this here. ;) "I invite you to explain why you are obeying these rules constitutes a difference with Cheese's rules explains the difference between what you're saying and precedence's example. -- . 04:00, 22 May 2009 (BST)" "I don't think that's even in English to be honest. =/ -- Cheese 17:24, 22 May 2009 (BST)" :D -- SA 01:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Tonight it's mead, and I'm not doing badly. That night it was Caffery's or Hobgoblin.... and I gained the linguistical abilities of Hagnat.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Except that I can usually decipher what hag's is sayin'. Also, you ever think that maybe you'd stop getting so many edit conflicts if you'd stop postan' as fast? :/ -- SA 02:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC) It's only when I'm taking the time to think up a reasonable response that it happens. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Historical Groups/Events Read your short treatise on the subject and I agree that some of these nominations are creating absolutely ridiculous amounts of drama. I think that getting rid of the Historical Group category is a good idea, but by the same token there should be some method of determining whether or not a groups page(s) should be on the wiki forever. Otherwise, we could end up with a number of group pages for groups that only lasted a month or two and disbanded; nobody will ever use them again or likely even visit them, so why keep them? What about changing the policy for nominations instead? Currently it stands at only two months after a group disbands (or after an event). Why not re-write the policy to account for a longer period of time, say six months or even a year? I would argue that if after that longer period of time people still even remember the event or group in question, it might be worth a nomination. Just my thoughts. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 07:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I'm only responding to one of these once. If I wanted your opinion (read: you had half a clue about the policies of this wiki) you'd have been invited to participate. It doesn't mean you should come to my talk page and fill it up with crap about every thought that passed through your head. We already keep group pages permanently on this wiki, even if they were only around a couple of months (see: ZEMA). You can't alter a policy towards nominations, because there isn't one currently. BB2 had 90-ish members when they got the nod the day we disbanded it, The Dead had well over a hundred and are still active. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC) This policy actually has nothing to do with Historical groups. It's all about gaming the system to prevent any hard-working janitors from beign able to clean up orphaned group pages. I'm sure there are other malicious clauses in there, but I only just woke up.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Cleaning up orphans on wikis is done by linking them to places so they are no longer orphaned. Clue's in the title there chet. Failing to assume good faith? Instant disqualification from sysop candidacy, filing this one. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC) What? How? Honestly? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC) whatisthisidonteven...Seriously? Malicious? It's less' malicious than deleting someone's group page!-- SA 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah. I was pretty asleep when I said that, but I think I meant that the entire point was to prevent the kind of groups that had been deleted before when Ross was cleaning them up. E.g. The borehamwood brotherhood, a blank page with an unfilled group template on it.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, yeah, you were 'asleep' when you accused another user of pure bad faith.... That's why I'll be doing everything I can to stop you getting promoted, you could get someone perma-banned pulling shit like that. Conndraka used to do exactly the same thing, speak authoritatively on a subject and then later, maybe, if called on it go and understand it. You're no different. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC) And only one member the meta had ever heard of. Who's a zombie. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Historical voting is the perfect example of why not everything on this wiki is a vote. It's not like you can say, "This is almost historic, try again in 2 months." I've been on the receiving end of a frankly ridiculous historical vote, and frankly despair at l33t newbs going "WHO?". Frankly it would be a lot easier if we just got a few people who have played the game since the beginning to decide. Nowadays there are only a handful of groups who can genuinely claim they "changed the game". Survivors are more fractured then ever, and the large zombie groups are the easy route for new zombies. Any groups formed this year people think are even close? Clubbed to death? Dead bunnies? Any survivor group? Meh. As I'm here, I've been reading the combat revive page. Think it needs a bit of a rewrite. Whats your opinion Iscariot? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Question is, who would you put on this committee? I haven't been here since 2005, neither have you. Hagnat? He called Sponge a cheat and unclassy for death culting and reporting survivor numbers at the beginning of MT09, when Sponge was doing what I (the guy that wrote the fucking rules for the event) asked him to. The newbies think everything they do is historical, the throwbacks think new playstyles like death culting are wrong and won't even consider them, who do we pick? And as this is the wiki there's the notion of limitation of authority, could a sysop override the committee for a popular choice under the 'ignore shit when it suits them' clause? Could they refuse to add the category (or remove it) on pages they disagree with? Feel free to jump onto PD3 and add your opinions Ross. Combat revive does need an overhaul, badly. So do a lot of older 'glossary' style pages. I was thinking of doing the death cultist one a while back, but then remembered that all I do is 'troll this place' and add 'malicious clauses' where ever I go.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC) I've just got to work, but I'll chime in later today. A lot of the glossary pages need a complete rewrite. Ive been toying around with a major revamp of the zombie skills pages as well. Must finish that. Ransack doesn't even mention Decay. And that's been an update for what years? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 08:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Spending time on the wiki whilst at work? You dedicated and loyal employee you. Decay? Been around for about a year and a half now hasn't it? It appeared during the Culture Tour and that was January to October 2008. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Committee featuring players from all years, for a wider spectrum? And frankly, Iscariot, that clause I outline WAS an aggressive attempt at stopping the kind of thing that had been happenign before, and you've not actually said anythign in defence of why it contributes to the PD.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC) I don't have to say anything in defence of anything. This isn't A/PD, this is my talk page. End of discussion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC) An apology Hey Iscariot. I just wanted to say I'm sorry for the way I went after you on the A/VB discussion. I left a proper apology there, but it's worth mentioning it on your page as well. Especially when on my talk page I told you not to be insulting and belittling. That's pretty hypocritical of me. Anyways, there you have it. For the record I'm still upset with the way you treated Dawgjz, but I shouldn't have made my point by being a jackass. --GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 12:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC) It's the internet, I take flames for fun, it's always better to be honest with people than not. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC) About the comments regarding humor Thanks for your input; I have seen the Columbine Kids page. I feel it is an unfortunate choice but to be fair, humor is often dark and full of edges. Creating that page is not a choice I would have made, but people have a right to express themselves as they see fit. That is also why I did not edit the Burn Towers site after another user pointed out that it was within my rights to do so if I saw fit(I am a humble newbie and misunderstood the rules...apparently English is my first AND second language). If I find something as vulgar, crass, boorish or even repugnant, that is my opinion and I think it is OK to tell someone that is how I feel about it. Would'nt you do the same for any friend who made a joke that was offending people? Of course, real sarcasm is best left to professionals. They usually are saying shocking things because they want things to get better-much like that raging Gryphon gent on your page. What do you think? Thanks for the comment--Belisarius17 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Fair enough I was just informing you so that you could if you wanted to. You know, instead of getting more problems involved in your Vandal data.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC) His edits are the problem, undoing them would allow anyone with even a modicum of VD knowledge mixed with knowing the history being able to correctly ascertain my current record. However he won't do it, says a lot about his character and integrity. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I think that the only reason he isn't doing it is because he doesn't really understand why there's a problem with it. And neither does anyone else really. O.o It was a pretty confusing situation. What's your problem with the current notation on VD?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Let's not even get into the 'notation' which is completely false and irrelevant and there only to cover things up, the entire thing is incorrect in its entirety. Simple question, how is it an unreasonable request to undo his edits until the correct version is discovered? I am the only one who could be harmed by doing that and I'm the one requesting it. No, he can't come up with a reasonable answer either. For anyone else this would have been done in a heartbeat with the minimum of fuss, I've asked on three fucking pages and got nothing but being ignored. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Hmm. Well, if it IS only harming you by reverting the edit, which I can see it definately is, then there shouldn't really be a problem. I guess the way he's thinking is that there's no point putting it back how it was before, because both are wrong, and there isn't really any formal investigation going in to it. I assume he decided to go with the more leniant option of the two then, as opposed to giving you something which was both wrong and bad. It's a tricky situation. I'll talk to him, and see if he'd be willing to revert the edit.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC) His isn't the more lenient version in any way, it serves to obsfucate the issue and is blatantly hypocritical, and he knows it. Good luck trying to talk to him, prepare to be stonewalled. Or he'll fall into the argument of "Prove beyond all doubt what the correct version is", odd how he didn't have to do the same before he made his edits isn't it? It won't get changed, ever, he'd have to admit he'd wrong and his little world would fall apart if he did. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Well, I'll go in with an open mind, hear what he has to say, and hopefully we'll be able to find some mutual ground where everyone's happy. Preferably the actual correct data, which no-one seems to know. I might take a look at it tomorrow, and see if I can work it out.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC) You clearly have no desire to resolve conflicts on the wiki. I'm not going to try to mediate the discussion anymore. If you wanted any hope of that edit being reverted, you shouldn't have gone in and been aggressive. I hope you enjoy your outcome.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC) You have neither the desire or the ability to resolve conflicts on this wiki. You kicked off this drama swarm with your idiotic backseat modding regarding messing about with other people's A/VD history. As stated on A/VB it is the user's responsibility to track their record, the user's, not your responsibility. If you had even a modicum of awareness regarding this wiki you'd have known what would happen, so you're either deliberately causing the drama or you have no idea of the history of this community. Either makes you a very poor candidate for promotion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Now I've seen mention of this subject a few times, and I really doubt I have the story straight. Can you explain what exactly happened? I'm willing to look into the situation if I you can tell me the whole story in a non-massive wall of text.-- SA 14:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Links and relevant stuffs too plox.-- SA 15:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Let's see if DDR can back up his grand gestures with a binding agreement first. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Fair enough, I'll leave the situation alone then. though if you want me to look into it, just drop me a line you know? Until then, no need for me to bother with it right? And about your policy page, I didn't think you'd mind for a typo correction. From this case, I thought you really just had a problem with people giving input and talking about the policy in general. I'm sorry. I think there was a typo at towards the bottom of the page too. :) -- SA 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Edit conflicts Weird no? I'm waiting for your DS comment. I feel it will be epic. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC) On what? I already commented on that unlimited play suggestion. And I was referring to the other one about the edit conflicts :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC) So you have. I was suprised at the lack of Rage --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I was saving it up for the dump suggestion, where I was asked a question by him.... and he promptly edit conflicted me when I tried to reply. You just can't help some people. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Apologies for not being psychic, O great one. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 21:03, 26 October 2009 (BST) If only your punctuation had been correct, that would have gone on a wall of rightness, if I ever made one. Also, Ross, you're active, activeness is rewarded with buttons. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry, one of those conflicts was mine, though I didn't realize it until I saw the comment on your edit. I suppose we all had some opinions we wanted to share with regards to that particular subject. I felt as if I was running into conflicts left and right. —Aichon— 00:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC) The edit Best not to re-revert it, the page is now linked elsewhere, and they have discretion about what's on their talk page.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC) "I best"? Really? Perhaps telling someone who has had people escalated for removing posts from talk pages they don't own (as you have done) is not best. How about you learn about editing privileges, especially given your aspirations of being a sysop, before telling me about history and precedent. After all, saying that Mall Tour 2007 participated in the Second Big Bash's final destruction of Dulston clearly proves you fail basic history. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Firstly, I mean "It would be best" not "You'd best". Sorry for that misunderstanding. Anyway, it would be better to remove a comment to conform with the page owners wishes than to repeatedly add it for... what reason again? To keep it off of a list which it's no longer on? Frankly, Iscariot, threatening to take me to A/VB, or somehow endanger my efforts to become a sysop doesn't worry me. If sorting out this wiki the way it should be prevents me from being a sysop, then I guess I wouldn't care to be one. However, the fact that what I did was in the best interests of the group makes it perfectly acceptable. And I wasn't the oen who removed the comment, I just stopped you from putting it back. And frankly, I feel I know slightly more about what's happening in Dulston than you, seeing how I've been there for several years, and you've been there once, fleetingly.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Arking Saving this: from deletion for Talk:Suggestions. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:13, 20 October 2009 (BST) This: and this for evidence on A/P. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Dulston I asssume the "Group of ferals" that you're referring to is the mass of 200+ members of the dead, Mall tour and the Big Bash 2? If not, then I really have no idea what attack on dulston you're talking about, because that was the most recent.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:11, 18 October 2009 (BST) Wow, believing your own propaganda now? BB2 wrecked the suburb to close in April or May of 2008, are you perhaps trying to say Mall Tour 2007 that had been over for more than six months had come back into existence just for you? Awww, did The Dead attack you? Poor baby, odd how every other suburb has managed to get back on its feet in the year since except for Dulston. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:52, 20 October 2009 (BST) Hi DDR bugged me to come back here because there's only like 3 active sysops and shit like that. Whatever. I didn't plan on coming back now, if ever, but anyway. I'd like to apologize for some of my behavior right before you left, and while it's no excuse, I was just having life problems in general and I took a lot of my anger out on you when I didn't need to or really have a right to. So I'm sorry. I'm not exactly looking for forgiveness, as I think that you're probably still seething with hatred towards me, but I wanted to say I'm sorry anyway and hopefully cut down on the clashes we may have in the future. Glad you removed the no-sysops rule here though, don't know where I'd have stuck this otherwise. If you want to delete it like the old days, I can understand that too. :) Anyway, sorry for my simple-folk-colonial grammar, see ya'll later.-- SA 13:57, 18 October 2009 (BST) For the record I bugged him to come back before we were short on ops, it just so happens he's even more welcome now. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:07, 18 October 2009 (BST) Horse shit, you told me about a half hour to come back you fucker. >: ( -- SA 14:13, 18 October 2009 (BST) You ass, what about all those spam myspace messages over the space of the past 2 1/2 months? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:36, 18 October 2009 (BST) IF you actually read the fucking page I have every once in awhile you'd know I don't really use the damn thing anymore. I only caught that last comment because I was killing time before work. :/ Also, woah. Where did this job page come from? >< -- SA 15:00, 18 October 2009 (BST) Dude. I only ever spammed you WHEN you made a message or posted a bulletin on there :/ Got any more below-average excuses? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:07, 19 October 2009 (BST) Iscariot prevented me from coming back because he foresaw the amount of shit you're causing me to write here?-- SA 07:19, 19 October 2009 (BST) Unfortunately the little exchange on The General's talk page proves that nothing has in fact changed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:52, 20 October 2009 (BST) Active Come tomorrow, It'll be scaled back. I'm throwing up some lexicon stuff but that'll be it. As for the red link user? Of course he hasn't played both sides. I doubt he's even played one side properly. Maybe I can recommend Quarantine 2019 to him. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:51, 17 October 2009 (BST) I shall be watching, if I even see the hint of real activity you will be getting the nomination. It was my sarcastic voice about the idiot. Don't recommend that other game, or link it, the less coverage those whining cry babies get, the better. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:53, 17 October 2009 (BST) Deal, not even shintolin? Sometimes Iscariot, you're my favourite "Bad Cop" --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:56, 17 October 2009 (BST) You can do what you want in Shintolin, it's fast starting to bore me, also the various 'blocs' on the forum are soon going to start forcing idiot changes through and it'll become like 2019 in my opinion. It's been a nice demonstration on some ideas I had planned, but ultimately I don't think it had a planned path from the beginning and now it's suffering for it and is going to decay accordingly. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 17 October 2009 (BST) I think its going to go through cycles of boredom. then lots of new features, followed by boredom. I can't believe no-ones razed Arboros to the ground yet. Did I mention boredom. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:04, 17 October 2009 (BST) It's got no hook, in UD it's the apocalypse and subsequently horde/event attacks, in NW it was the point of ascension or descension and the funky new toys it brought. There's no mechanic that one settlement can force collectively a technology shift independent of the others, I'm stickpiling XP on characters incase it gets good, but I don't think it can with it being incredibly inconsistent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:07, 17 October 2009 (BST) Hey Moved your comment on J3ds talk so that it actually went after DDR's. Just so you know. Revert it if you want to, or whatever.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:44, 13 October 2009 (BST) Looks like I got lost in the maze of text. Cheers for that. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:34, 13 October 2009 (BST) Not a problem.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:58, 13 October 2009 (BST) Erm Why did you remove Karek as well as Pestolence from the arbitrator list? Pestolence hasn't made an edit since June so that's justified but Karek's last edit was on the 19th. Did he ask for it or something? Cyberbob  Talk  08:06, 27 September 2009 (BST) I'll be waiting for my apology.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:12, 27 September 2009 (BST) You will get your apology when you explain two things: what the apology is for, and why you removed Karek from the list. Cyberbob  Talk  09:17, 27 September 2009 (BST) Click this link. Now use this wonderful power I expect you to have called reading, spot Karek and then apologise. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:44, 27 September 2009 (BST) I've decided that you don't deserve an apology. If apologies mean so much to you perhaps next time you could be a bit more gracious in your responses. Cyberbob  Talk  09:49, 27 September 2009 (BST) Just so everyone reading this is aware, I was performing routine maintenance as proscribed by the wiki job list and completed it as stated in the guidelines. Cyberbob came here and accused me of removing a user incorrectly when anyone who clicked the page in question could see that his accusation was false. Despite being categorically proven wrong no apology was offered and instead a blatant personal attack was launched even though Cyberbob was at fault throughout. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:59, 27 September 2009 (BST) I prefered it when this page was a haven against sysops...what happened to that rule? --xoxo 06:40, 8 October 2009 (BST) Unlike certain sysops I am making an effort to be reasonable on this wiki. One only has to look at Cyberbob's conduct here and Boxy's doctoring of my A/VD data to see that this is apparent. You'll notice that if you or I added sections of nonsense or sections deliberately large as to obscrure the responses of others on a policy page, we'd be taken to A/VB and escalated. I find it strange that the same doesn't seem to apply to sysops and their pets. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:56, 8 October 2009 (BST) Sysops You have said repeatedly recently that you'd like to see new sysops promoted to cover the slack. Recently, I've considered running, and I consulted the current sysops prior to your return about it. They said that I needed to become more present in drama-nests such as a/vb and a/m, which I have tried to do since, although have not yet completely achieved. In your opinion, if I were to continue to work on these goals, would you support me in a sysop bid?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:08, 25 September 2009 (BST) It is not entirely to do with presence in these arenas, nor the quantity of contributions but the quality of those contributions. Awareness of precedent and abandonment of ego as regards these arenas. Conndraka and Cyberbob are bad sysops by this criteria, both exercise the power of the sysop as if it's some elite and divine right, and both cause more drama and discord in the community as a result. However, not causing drama by non-participation also makes you a bad sysop, see The Rooster in the recent Nubis drama, it would have been in the community's best interest to have full participation from the admin team, yet apparently it's beneath The Rooster even though he was active elsewhere (targeting me whilst still doing fuck all about a major group doing the same), such traits also make a bad sysop. The important thing to consider is why you want to be a sysop and what you will do when promoted, these are just as important as procedural and policy knowledge. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:53, 26 September 2009 (BST) I want to be a sysop so that I can help out on the admin pages, instead of just turning up and reading them, or occassionally posting a semi-relevant comment on the talk. Being a sysop, I'd be able to actually do something about things. I'm certainly aware that i've been trollish in the past, and I feel I've made steps towards fixing this more recently.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 09:50, 26 September 2009 (BST) Theoretical ruling time. Say you're a sysop, provide a ruling and explanation for it for the following cases; 1 and 2 will do for starters. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:40, 26 September 2009 (BST) On the SA case, I'd say borderline Misconduct. I didn't read the whole thing, but from the beginning section, he opened the door to misconduct by using his sysop status as a badge. Furthermore, that precedent against Hagnat that Cheese linked to is fairly clear. I'll read the other one briefly, then I'll read over them again to check if I stand by my decisions.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:46, 26 September 2009 (BST) I'd also say misconduct on the Boxy case. He used his powers to remove groups which, at the time they were added, were deemed historical. They should be evaluated by the process that stood at the time, not the present one. That would be like holding re-evaluations for sysops who had held the position but were no longer sysops anymore, like Odd Starter. It would be ridiculous.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:52, 26 September 2009 (BST) And based on this I won't be vouching for you. Conndraka used to pull the same behaviour, rule on something and then maybe, possibly read and understand the circumstances later. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:54, 26 September 2009 (BST) If this were an actual case, I would have read it. Since it's just you finding my general opinion, I gave a general opinion. As I'm havign two conversations at once, i thought it would be best to give a swift response, and a more evaluated one later. In the case of an actual a/m case, I'd have several days to make a ruling, not five minutes.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:59, 26 September 2009 (BST) Major Polish I'm a bit too close to this to really see the glaring logical areas, want to lead me through them, much like a confused and drunken child? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:05, 20 September 2009 (BST) Logical errors wise, I see two major ones: "More importantly no zombie or hostile groups are listed. " followed by "Get a rivalry going" The notion that the wiki is accurate when it comes to group placement and effectiveness. I guarantee that the DEM are still listed in at least 10 suburbs they don't have anyone in. The big problem though is it's lack of style, there's nothing there, no character. Grim's guide and my rantings work because of their unadulterated loathing for people who do differently, and people have a platform then to engage it from, this guide has no soul, with no soul there's nothing to make a connection to a newbie searching this vast resource for help. It becomes forgettable. I can see what you're saying because I've been playing for years, your facts are sound, I know this, you know this, but without any explanation as to why it becomes just as valid as Brainguard's Fort strategy to newbies. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:59, 20 September 2009 (BST) Frankly thats two good points. The DEM aren't as bad as they were, and when I challenged the MFD, (By far the worst offender) I did manage to take them off 20 or so suburbs. I'll change both those points. As for style, you're right. Lookng back it shows that I wrote it in 3 big chunks and It doesn't flow. I'm just wondering If its possible to inject character in a way other than anger? As I'm here which 80's programme are you referencing with your sig? The one with the remake or the one with the hoff? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:52, 20 September 2009 (BST) Style's a funny thing. NMH worked as it was written in one sitting as an outpouring at the banality of that SOS page, HTABRG (sig link) was written over several months and is more vanilla, think about how you want your guide to approach the user and from that dictate the tone and language of the piece. I style most of my stuff after The Prophet Hicks or 2, generally because that's how I write and argue in general, it doesn't mean aggression is the only method of structuring a guide. Find another work, whether guide, novel or even a review that you want your guide to be like and then from there see how it could be done in a vanilla manner, an aggressive manner etc. From there you should be able to isolate what you like about it and apply it. I still think you need to increasing its size through explanations to qualify your remarks, I think it will end up three times bigger if done right. As for the TV show, I like the millennial remake: I like my toasters with blonde hair and legs that go all the way up.... The quote in the mouse-over text is from Leoben. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:07, 20 September 2009 (BST) The Demon of Razgriz Is this a character? If so, do you know who's user namespace it should be under? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:02, 16 September 2009 (BST) Yeah, it's a character, I'll go on the forum later and find the owner for you. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:09, 16 September 2009 (BST) PD Invite me you bum so I have somewhere to stick this comment that's sitting in my clipboard. Cyberbob  Talk  18:13, 15 September 2009 (BST) Signature Your signature must have at leased one character linking to your userpage. Users have been made to change their signatures before if the signature is nothing but redirect-images. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:38, 15 September 2009 (BST) So, are you going to change your signature to comply with the sig policy any time soon? The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages, image can link elsewhere. It's not obvious to newbies that the image is what they need to click on to find your userpage via a redirect. Signatures are there to make it easy for people to know who made a post, and to find their userpage to contact them -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:04 27 September 2009 (BST) Please do not add links to my user talk page. As you may not be aware, my signature is legal and was accordingly deemed so by the user who questioned it above. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:09, 27 September 2009 (BST) The link is to avoid your stupid set up here, where I have to edit the whole page, and find where I need to edit in a wall of text instead of being able to edit only the section I want to reply to. Any valid reason why you are making it difficult for people to use this page for it's intended purpose? Your signature isn't legal, you've been asked nicely to fix it, and haven't. The handle portion of a signature is a text link to your user page (or a sub-page thereof). Please modify it now -- boxy talk • teh rulz 06:32 27 September 2009 (BST) I dislike such links and have asked you nicely not to use them already. Do not place another one on my page. Please revisit your supposed timeline of events, the legality of my signature was questioned by a now current 'crat, the signature was altered and then deemed legal. If you are of the mistaken belief that my current signature is illegal I invite you to point directly as to which portion is illegal and why by quoting the appropriate section of the Signature Policy and then allow me the week am I permitted to select and code a new signature as allowed by policy. Although I am wondering, as are others no doubt, as to why my signature gets so much coverage when a member of the sysop team has had an illegal signature for months and not one of you have thought to bring that up. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:39, 27 September 2009 (BST) Adding a single full stop is not a suitable fix for this problem, as you well know, the handle portion of your sig needs to be obvious, not hidden away -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:40 27 September 2009 (BST) I'm waiting for the policy quote and the appropriate week, please supply the appropriate quote, as your current argument is provably incorrect due to basic precedent. Either my sig is legal, or other sigs by multiple users including sysops have been conveniently overlooked by you in the past. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:44, 27 September 2009 (BST) You've had your week. Do it, and do it now. If you have issues with other people's sigs, bring them up, don't just expect me to know what you're talking about -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:50 27 September 2009 (BST) I have not had a week at all, yet again I remind you that the last time the legality of my sig was brought into question and that notice was created, it was resolved within the hour and ruled as legitimate by the sysop in question. You are attempting to deny me the basic rights as established by policy and I find this to be clearly in bad faith, especially given your deceitful alterations to my vandal data history. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:59, 27 September 2009 (BST) I also invite you to undo your deceitful edits to my vandal history. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:39, 27 September 2009 (BST) Group Removal I should've consulted them, yes, but I was, and still am, sure that the Philosophe Knights are a PKer group, and therefore shouldn't be in the survivor section of a group template for a suburb. I also should've moved it from Survivor to Hostile, but there again I made a mistake. --RahrahCome join the #party!09:00, 13 September 2009 (BST) You shouldn't be moving them full stop. The Philosophe Knights have defended that mansion for years and been more survivor than most in the area. Elsewhere they might be considered hostile, at home they're survivor. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:08, 13 September 2009 (BST) I'm busy atm And thus give you permission to rep 2 Cool inc in the current arbies case, should you still desire to.--xoxo 01:26, 13 September 2009 (BST) Bob says I'm not allowed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:45, 13 September 2009 (BST) Unfortunately it's not bob's decision. Offers on the table if you want it, and i can choose anyone to rep me i want.--xoxo 05:43, 14 September 2009 (BST) To save them complaining, and have them continue to accuse my return as being anything other than a constructive new start, perhaps it would be easier for me to counsel you in this case off the wiki radar. Do you have perhaps an email address where I could send my thoughts? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:25, 14 September 2009 (BST) You are changing the core of the case and we have to accept that before the case continues. Even my argument took me a whole of 40 minutes (and if it weren't 1 in the morning it would have been done quicker), you can't dedicate half an hour of your time to write up an argument? On a wiki? In the name of 2 Cool? You've changed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:07, 14 September 2009 (BST) You say that like it's a bad thing. For example, I can post here now :). Linkthewindow  Talk  11:39, 15 September 2009 (BST) Appreciation Thread I did miss you. Welcome back. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:54, 12 September 2009 (BST) I was told by someone who frequents here that there was a major upheaval in the sysop system and a major drama job, thought I'd come help out (that's fix it, not add to it). Given I have five misconduct cases ready to go in my old guise, I'd appreciate the credit when I don't swarm the various pages with these and vandalism cases. New policy is needed as well as clarification of precedent, hopefully I'll be making a start shortly. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:59, 12 September 2009 (BST) ^_^ --Haliman - Talk 15:56, 12 September 2009 (BST) There may well be a new "Thou shalt not edit conflict me" rule going up :p -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:59, 12 September 2009 (BST) Well, I guess welcome back? I hope you make a fresh start. I'm not sure if I missed you, but I do miss the ability to edit sections on this page.--Thadeous Oakley 16:00, 12 September 2009 (BST) He's gone again. Possibly forever (see: 2 months).--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:55, 4 October 2009 (BST) I stand corrected. He's back.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:44, 5 October 2009 (BST) Your signiture.... I was having a little trouble when I was making my signiture. I was wondering where you went to get the image you had? I tried a number of different things, not a one of which really worked for me,.... either because they were to big height wise, or file size wise. Any suggestions? -Poodle of DoomM! 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC) just a fyi Your characted description left me puzzled about WTF you were talking about. Rubens barrichelo can kiss my ass, he is the worst racer that brazil ever sent to formula one. Last year i did rotted for Massa a lot, but rubens didnt smashed Hamilton's car, and Vettel couldnt hold the brit in that final lap, so he lost. This year was awesome to see the races, but as far as brazilians were running on it, there wasnt hope for them... specially if you take into account barrichelo's murder attempt on Massa in that race that prevented him from racing several races. I am anxious to see next year championship, but this year, meh. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 17:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)