User talk:DanceDanceRevolution

edit User talk:DanceDanceRevolution Start a topic. Press: + Is it an emergency?  Email  Archives 2007 2008 2009 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2010 H1 H2 2011 Q1 Q2 H2 MORE 2012 2013 2014-2017

AS User Page

Leave it as is, don't bother deleting the contributions from Isgaru. The info is *mostly accurate* and could come in handy for someone down the road.--Agent Sandman 03:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the quick reply. --

 

 

 

 

03:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Hope you had a fireworkalicious ferked erp evening. We have net in our room! So expect 3 days of constant udwiki-ing! xoxo 03:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

=O --

 

 

 

 

03:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Mudkip!

Mwuhahahaha! Miss me? Of course you didn't. ;D --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

=O --

 

 

 

 

16:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong? You look like you just seen a ghost. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

=O --

 

 

 

 

16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

NEW MANHUNT!! =D --

 

 

 

 

16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Maybe next time, huh? Still working out a few kinks on my newly repaired PC. (Yes...It took me nearly 6 months just to get working on that PC... >< ) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

But you know what? Since I've been out for ages, I've decided to give you all a new music quiz to play around with. =P --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

But...But... it's still about yu-gi-oh... :*( --

 

 

 

 

16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Better then nothing at the moment. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the YGOTAS stuff is done for...Time to resume the regular program...Enjoy. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 16:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WINDOWS 7 BUDDAY

This is awesome.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty coolo, I guess... --

 

 

 

 

23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:/-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I is scared my computer crash :*( --

 

 

 

 

00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We just tried it on four different 7s, 64bit and 32. It works fine, and is awesome.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Kewl! Why can't you be sysopppp and warn mee --

 

 

 

 

00:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I gotta wait two weeks. :/ -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

<(^o^<) Emoticon unrelated--Orange Talk 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not post other people's personal details on this wiki. Continuing this behaviour may lead to your editing privileges being revoked. -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:17 6 January 2010 (BST)

Protected?

Couldn't remember if suggestions get protected after the voting is done or not, and looking through some old ones is inconclusive, since some are protected and others aren't. —Aichon— 08:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

They are, it's scheduled. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I knew we had a list of scheduled protections somewhere, but I couldn't remember where off the top of my head. —Aichon— 21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo

I hear you're being a badass on the wiki, tut tut. In other news i want a new sig, any thoughts? xoxo 12:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I kind of like your sig. It's simplistic yet stylistic in it's own way. :( -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well i have no idea if you're being sarcastic, I'm vain like that but i'll take it as a compliment anyway. I also like it but i've been kind of put off since some random nub replying to me called me 'Alim'. In the words of that bitch from the ting tings, thats not my name (although it is awesome) and what with all these people on the wiki who i barely know i think i need to reassert my (lack of) authority with a bold new sig. Feel free to help in some random sandbox. Maybe this one? xoxo 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No sarcasm at all, promise. I can't come up with sigs too well on my own if you hadn't noticed, and make them decent. :( Sorry.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just gimme something manly! xoxo 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been a bit of a bastard lately. On an issue related to my stressed out demeanor, I guess I might explain where I've been; I've been kicked out of home so I don't know when it will be than I can consistently edit again. For clarification, lately I have had minimal internet access but have chosen not to come back extensively because the occasional stress of UDWiki isn't what I need in my situation, but even despite these events I still plan on attending all Crat duties as they roll in, eg. SA's bid. As for a sig, just do something annoying and blue, should suffice. Unless you're passed plugging that ALiM garbage, but should I even hope? ;D --

 

 

 

 

13:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Who kicked you out? was it that bitch midget cleaner?/ I knew it! Actually did she ever exist...?? Also - i'm not over alim, i still love it. its just my new roll on the wiki is that of standing up for the supressed little people under your regime. Not your as in you, more as in the others *evil eyes* xoxo 13:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

this

his justification is "-" GOSHHHHHHHHHH --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I will fight you! --

 

 

 

 

07:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Boxing gloves, brass knuckles, or bare-handed? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature

I am trying to change my sig to a new look, but the template I made seems incorrect. The appearance of it is fine but the date stamp is huge. How do i fix it to look normal? --Creeping Crud _U 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I found your problem. You forgot a </span> at the end of your userpage link. I threw it in, and it appears to be working now. Don't worry too much, it happens to the best of us!--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 03:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was at work so I couldn't help you out until Hawk had already done it. --

 

 

 

 

15:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for the help. Cheers! --Creeping Crud _U 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice

I'm thinking of making a very public show of the fact I believe a group is systematically zerging on a large scale. I plan to list all the allegations on a page in my usespace. Now thats in no way vandalism is it? Im assuming as its my own page I can protect it myself as well? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Having an opinion isn't vandalism, and there's no control that the admins can exercise over a user's comments (barring stuff that goes against the TOU.) And sysop sub-pages aren't a scheduled protection, but I don't think anyone would care if you protected it. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

All of those things are fine by this wiki's guidelines, userpages can have any POV material and you won't be misconducted for protecting it yourself. --

 

 

 

 

12:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC) --

 

 

 

 

12:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeh go get 'em ross!--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck is this tou and where did it come from? Its too long to bother reading but it seems to me to be some sort of sysop conspiracy. I've never been vandalismised for breaking it before...what the fuck is happening! !xoxo 08:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The TOU page has been around for at leased a year i'm pretty sure, made as a project by SA to sort of add a codified list of things that could/couldn't be done on the wiki lest it jeopardise Kevan's ownership of the site and to make sure nothing we do takes it down. Conndraka used to be pretty big on it. --

 

 

 

 

09:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll add by saying that most of the stuff against the TOU was considered vandalism/misconduct before it was even created into a page, so you never really had much of an excuse anyway ;D --

 

 

 

 

09:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

^-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 09:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You americans and your dislike of free speech, i understand. xoxo 07:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's always to do with race with you isn't it? --

 

 

 

 

08:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ja, i was gonna call them amerifags but thought i'd end up at the butt end of the TOU :( xoxo 04:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, see, adding -fag onto the end of things is generally accepted on the internet, aussiefag. And the term is Americunt, btw.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

lmao Cyberbob  Talk  09:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So...

It's nearly been a couple of months since my last bid. Think I'll be ready to run again by the end of the month? I've been really good, and avoided drama! 0:D --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you've done okay I guess. --

 

 

 

 

00:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

hey on the topic of de-escalations

just had an idea which might stop people like jed abusing the system forever while appeasing the people who think de-escalations have value: only allowing people a limited number of de-escalations (thinking between 3-5). y/n? Cyberbob  Talk  06:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I have a few ideas relating to that now so I'll give it some thought and add some more ideas later tonight. --

 

 

 

 

06:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just lengthen the time that they have to wait between de-escalations. Instead of 1 months (plus a certain number of edits), I'd bump it up to 6 months. Career vandals wouldn't be able to exist if they only got two de-escalations a year, but for people genuinely trying to reform, it'd give them a way to work it off over time. If you only allow a fixed number of de-escalations, eventually you'll start losing contributing members who get a warning every now and then (e.g. based on A/VD, we'd be close to or would have already lost both you and SA had the fixed-number system been in place from the start). —Aichon— 07:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that SA and I would have allowed ourselves to rack up so many escalations in the first place if we were only allowed a limited number of de-escalations? As for the people "genuinely trying to reform", that was the whole point of having warnings come before bans in the first place. I don't have much sympathy for people that would need more than 3-5 de-escalations (not to mention all the various degrees of bannage before the perma) to "genuinely reform". Cyberbob  Talk  08:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your faith in me ich. Thanks a lot.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 11:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he's going by pure numbers of escalations under the current system, which is dumb. Cyberbob  Talk  12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

^+1-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, clearly the point I was trying to make did not get communicated. Whatever. SA is dumb, and that point isn't important (if you really want to argue it, hit me up on IRC). In any case, if users could average, at most, one escalation every six months without getting banned, that means that unless they stuck around for a few years, it'd actually be more strict than using a fixed number, while also being more forgiving in the long-term. To me, that seems like a win-win, since it keeps reform while eliminating the possibility of career vandals. —Aichon— 12:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Or they could get the fucking message after however many chances we give them. You know, either-or. Cyberbob  Talk  13:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, they could, but then we'd call it a win-lose instead. I just don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bath water here. I mean, if your solution was the only way, I would definitely support it since it's an improvement over what we have. But from what I can see, there are other ways to curb vandalism, and not all of them sacrifice reform in the process. —Aichon— 13:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)