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

Obligatory

First. —Aichon— 13:00, 28 June 2010 (BST)

Technically I'm Third. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:01, 28 June 2010 (BST)

Gah new archives look like a game of Dr Mario. 14:46, 28 June 2010 (BST)

It's a work in progress atm. Looking to make the cells shorter and the template a bit more compact --

 

 

 

 

14:57, 28 June 2010 (BST)

I like it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:56, 28 June 2010 (BST)

A page without my sig! +1 --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:04, 28 June 2010 (BST)

that other place

Yip, now full time project and map 2 is a go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rosslessness (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

So you're part of the development team? How exciting. Might see a decent zombie game come out of it yet. Certainly looking promising in a contemporary way to UD. --

 

 

 

 

15:42, 29 June 2010 (BST)

AHMH3

I'm doing this as a double check on the number of contestants, so if you don't mind, please sign the list. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:43, 30 June 2010 (BST)

This Looks Like a Job for a Wiki Mentor!

DDR, can you help me use my snazzy new sig, please? --Natasha Fatale 23:36, 2 July 2010 (BST)

I can set your sig up for you. It'll take me about 5 minutes.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:13, 3 July 2010 (BST)

(Bright smile) Thank you much, Yonnua! How do we work this? I have a sig made here: http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/0/0b/Natasha_fatale_sig.png

Guess we should stop cluttering up DDR's talk page...--Natasha Fatale 00:46, 3 July 2010 (BST)

DW about that, looks like you've got some help, good luck! --

 

 

 

 

03:15, 3 July 2010 (BST)

GO!!

Let's get this party started! -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 23:25, 3 July 2010 (BST)

Those two votes

Are not incorrectly signed. They have the indent which I put on them still left on. The votes are signed perfectly.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:23, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Right, sorry, no idea what I'm talkign about. This one on the other hand looks awfully well signed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:26, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Right, now I see all the reasons I'm confused. Damn people editting each other's timestamps. Thanks!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:29, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Good point, Yonnua. DDR, please stop interfering in the democratic process. There is no rule against fixing somebody's signature when they have clearly attempted to do so. See {{unsigned}}. (Timestamps come from the History tab, noobs.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:32, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Revenant, those are not correctly signed, and, since it's a vote where it explicitly said they would be struck otherwise, there'll be no meddling with them.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:35, 5 July 2010 (BST)

No, you're impersonating, which done knowingly is vandalism. You keep it up? You'll be sent to vandal banning. If you want the votes so badly you have to get the users to come back onto the wiki and add the signature and timestamp themselves. You may not make the users timestamp for them, in all votes for the wiki votes/timestamps/sigs must be 100% the voters material, always has been and at the top it's no exception and states the criterea that a valid vote must be when placed which was breached no matter how much surgery you try and pull on the votes to fix them. And I know they come from the history tab. --

 

 

 

 

07:43, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Gotta agree with DDR and Yonn on this one. It's standard practice and it says it in plain language that explicitly lays out what'll happen if you fail to do it properly. That said, there's more to that rule than merely striking the vote, and on the one user I did check, neither of you two followed through on it. —Aichon— 07:52, 5 July 2010 (BST)

As far as I remember it said we should notify the users. I don't bother notifying meatpuppets. If it were you who screwed it up, I would notify you, not users who will only get the message when they're called back in a month. --

 

 

 

 

07:53, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I actually notified them both when I struck them the first time.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:57, 5 July 2010 (BST)

There are three that have been struck, and, ironically, the only one I checked was the one you didn't notify (I since saw your two notifications on my own). Regardless, DDR is correct, it says "should", not "must". —Aichon— 08:03, 5 July 2010 (BST)

The {{unsigned}} template does not constitute impersonation. Neither does fixing someone else's timestamp. The History confirms that the comment was theirs, I am providing correct attribution. lrn2copyrite kthx ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:31, 5 July 2010 (BST)

If you don't stop edit warring this, I'll be protecting the page until you've shown signs you can behave. Then we'll see who has the winning chance in you're petty election. God, I can't wait till you look back on this in a week and realise how retarded you're behaving. --

 

 

 

 

08:34, 5 July 2010 (BST)

O RLY? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 18:09, 5 July 2010 (BST)

This isn't about Revenant scrabbling for votes. I fail to see how correcting timestamps is an unreasonable thing to do; as Revenant pointed out, the comment with the correct time is clearly attributed to the original poster in the page history. Forgetting a piece of attribution that's stored elsewhere doesn't make the posters' intent any less obvious or valid. Could you explain the rationale for why this was unacceptable? ~ AphelionT 19:21, 5 July 2010 (BST)

It actually does make it less valid. Not by logic but just by the rules of keeping a clean boundary between properly made votes and otherwise. I was simply basing this off voting guidelines of policy discussion and suggestions voting. I could give you a history lesson explaining in a very logical manner exactly why I'm not even pursuing this anymore, so I don't really know why you're jumping in. --

 

 

 

 

00:54, 6 July 2010 (BST)

I brought it up because I don't understand the thought process behind your decision, and alluding vaguely to unspecified rules isn't very helpful. I see nothing wrong with fixing attributions as long as everything is correct and properly cited. I mean, yes, you should timestamp your votes, and if you do it wrong, people are under no obligation to count it--but if someone is inclined to correct it, where's the harm? Why does a "properly made" vote have more intrinsic value than one that was later corrected by someone else when both are equally clear and equally well cited? Since the issue is no longer relevant, I'm willing to drop it, but it just seems strange to me. ~ AphelionT 01:57, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Ask the founding fathers of the wiki where they got their decisions from, don't make me go through the A/PD archives to answer your pointless questions, again I was just following what has been used as a rule of thumb for official wiki votes, as Yonnua did when he wrote the rules. As for citing unspecified rules, well, that's just a perk of actually spending a lot of time on this place, so don't look at me as if I'm trying to cheat you out of some sort of conversational leverage, it's just the truth, and I couldn't care less whether you "buy" its legitimacy or not. I'm sorry if this seems blunt but it's only because I really don't want to have to keep grinding on about these questions when I've been proven by sysop vote that my view does not apply in this case and have happily yielded- it's a null argument now. --

 

 

 

 

07:23, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Dagnabit, I only just read the last sentence of your post saying you were willing to drop it. nvm. --

 

 

 

 

08:33, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Promotions

Regarding the current bids. Neither Grim or Revenant meet the criteria. It's mostly good ol spam. WOOT precedent? I didn't want to drag them to A/VB since I doubt they are aware of it. But why are the bids still on? I thought stuff likes this gets moved to the talk page, not archived as Ross apparently wants let alone be seriously considered. Yeah, I'm asking you. --Thadeous Oakley 18:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Well in the case of the Woot precedent, it was his third or fourth case before he was vandalbanned. These two have done it once. The general idea is if it happens multiple times, THEN it's vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:23, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I'm talking about vandalism, I already said they don't know about it. It's about their promotions not meeting criteria. --Thadeous Oakley 18:34, 5 July 2010 (BST)

"If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain level of give may be extended to other criteria."

I think that pretty much covers it for both of them don't you? --Honestmistake 19:02, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Pardon me, it took me a while to understand what is going on. By no means do I mind, once the circus dies down it can be archived early (or just left to die after a long time span). As far as I see they are just tarnishing reputations and behaving like jackasses out of butthurtery, if being remembered for this is their prerogative then I don't mind. --

 

 

 

 

Plus I don't really think this is vandalism anyway, it strongly resembles Misanthropy's stunt, and I'm willing to back it up that way. --

 

 

 

 

01:20, 6 July 2010 (BST)

It's usually only vandalism if its been spammed on the page multiple times (as Yonnua said.) Usually we don't worry about cycling inappropriate candidates unless they are clearly inappropriate (and this is usually done under the pretense of not gaining enough vouch votes, an example is here.) In most cases (and especially in this case,) it's usually not worth the effort/drama to cycle a bid early. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:04, 6 July 2010 (BST)

And the obvious case of HE BROUGHT GRIM BACK FUCKING WIN --

 

 

 

 

07:26, 6 July 2010 (BST)

fyi

still pissy about the amnesia stuff. seriously that is low even for you. xoxo. xoxo 03:28, 6 July 2010 (BST)

ps what happened to cybro?xoxo 03:49, 6 July 2010 (BST)

He demoted because he had to finish the uni semester, exams etc. hasn't come back yet. considering emailing him about grim, he might be interested. --

 

 

 

 

07:16, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Manhunt

Dude. What's Happening? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:36, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Haha, I've been playing daily since the start, I'm afraid I just haven't found anyone. I've had a good time though, I was PKed on the first day for being a "fake revolutionary" from french revolutionary group and just today a member of Revenant's group tried to PK me, though it seems to have been isolated to the wiki drama- I think the guy just wanted to say he did. Either way, I'm just roaming around but it appears I have a dud sense of luck atm. --

 

 

 

 

11:26, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Drama? Where? Still its better than getting headshot at RP's by newbs. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:36, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Yah, I guess that's true. --

 

 

 

 

13:26, 6 July 2010 (BST)

In retrospect, I wish I had said that I was simply ignoring all other contestants and hunting you. Damn. --

 

 

 

 

06:46, 7 July 2010 (BST)

You're ignoring me? You'll die for this. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 10:50, 7 July 2010 (BST)

I thought he was ignoring everyone. Is he even trying? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:36, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Log on and kill me already. I'm just having terrible luck in this.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:34, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Hi guys! Good to see we all had the same RP idea. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:45, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Ross is there now too? I'm gonna be patrolling that RP all month. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:52, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Only because I wanted to get to a RP before getting headshot again. Ill move to my favourite one later. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:54, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Oi Hawk! This reminds me, you scanned me but never revived me! Boo :P --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 10:50, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Alex, zed v zed doesn't count at revive points ya doofus --

 

 

 

 

11:43, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Oh yeah. Ha, good thing really. I went there because Red informed me he'd be in the area.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:18, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Mattick Towers Image

Hey DDR. I noticed that you had deleted an image that I uploaded a week or two ago that I was going to use for a building. Unfortunately, I was in Los Angeles on vacation during the deletion and had limited access to the internet so I didn't get the chance to appeal it then. I'd like to use it now, if you don't mind. Thanks and here's hoping you gain Sysop. --TheBardofAwesome 11:18, 6 July 2010 (BST)

No prob. I'm already sysop and I'd be happy to reupload your image. Do you know its name at all? I can find it easier then, I'm afraid my archive is rather large. --

 

 

 

 

11:24, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Probably Image:Mattick_Towers.jpg, which was deleted June 28 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:41 6 July 2010 (BST)

Yep, that's the one Boxy! Thanks to the both of you. --TheBardofAwesome 12:19, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Done, aaand, done. Good luck!! --

 

 

 

 

13:28, 6 July 2010 (BST)

BTW

JSYK, it is not my intention to cast any aspersions on how hard you have worked for this place – far from it! I'd just like to contend that it is sometimes better to work smarter rather than harder. There is a saying in my line of work: "Two weeks coding saves two hours' planning." ;) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:21, 8 July 2010 (BST)

Yeah, fair enough. --

 

 

 

 

04:50, 8 July 2010 (BST)

...

I made a mistake, I know...So sue me. It's probably because I did the math first, and then realized some votes were posted after the deadline...Blame me for being too tired to do anything this morning... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:54, 9 July 2010 (BST)

But even if you counted removed votes, it still comes to 13/20, so 65%... --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:56, 9 July 2010 (BST)

2/3 is 66%. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:57, 9 July 2010 (BST)

Yeah but it wasnt 2/3 it was 13/20. Either way it's not like I mind, was just fixing is all --

 

 

 

 

16:58, 9 July 2010 (BST)

I struck Rev's vote first before counting, so technically, I counted 13/19. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:59, 9 July 2010 (BST)

LOL fair enough, though it doesn't make you any more right, just gives you a strange pattern of vote counting, haha --

 

 

 

 

17:02, 9 July 2010 (BST)

I still haven't have my 5 cups of coffee yet... >< --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:04, 9 July 2010 (BST)

We really need a better way to handle these voting deadlines. Oh, for Parser Functions! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:15, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Actually...it might be possible without them. Simple addition and subtraction is possible using switch statements, but you can only do it for preset/hardcoded ranges of numbers (at least, I've never figured out a way to do it for an arbitrary integer, but if you know a way to implement addition for an arbitrary integer using only switch statements, you let me know). In our case, however, we'd only need to go up to 31, so the arithmetic is possible. Assuming we had some way to subst in the starting month and day of the vote via a template call (which I'm not sure is possible, off the top of my head), we'd be able to add 14 days onto it. At that point, we have the end date, which we could then use for a countdown and notification, much like I did back in the earliest revisions of the Big Bash 3 page. It's probably more hassle than it's worth though, since it'd likely be a few hundred or thousand lines of wikicode (e.g. some of the logic would be similar to what I used here, which is essentially one template call away from breaking the page). A better way would be to have someone compute the end date manually then call a template that acts like a countdown/notification to that date. That'd actually be pretty simple to make. —Aichon— 08:17, 10 July 2010 (BST)

{{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{SUBST:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} → 2010-07-10. Howzat? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:46, 10 July 2010 (BST)

But can you do all of that from a template call rather than directly on the page itself? That's the crux of the problem. The substing won't work, I believe, though there might be some ways to finagle it by using includeonly and some creative parsing. I've experimented with it in the past, and I know Rooster has too, but I don't think we've ever found success with it, from what I recall. —Aichon— 08:51, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Promotions talk page

Yeah, it was getting kinda ridiculous there. Good move. Kinda weirded me out seeing the Vouch/Againsts there as well, but figure it helps preserve the context, right? Can't help but wonder if making it more obvious that they're quotes is a good idea, but that's more a general procedural thought than anything. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:22, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Hmm. Like most things, I picked up that idea from whoever moved stuff over to the talk page before me, and I think it helps preserve context for whoever needs to remember it. I think it helps, it can make it look a little superficial I but in reality, it is only ever moved like that if it crosses the line into "going too far" so usually it's discussion that is considered a little unnecessary. Of course the crats should read it, it's just a majority of people shouldn't need to do get the jist of what's going on. --

 

 

 

 

03:26, 11 July 2010 (BST)

History

Was putting this where you did intentional? —Aichon— 02:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)

Ya --

 

 

 

 

02:24, 13 July 2010 (BST)

Gotcha. The wording left me wondering a bit, so I figured I'd double check. —Aichon— 03:31, 13 July 2010 (BST)

Recent Changes

Stalker!--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:30, 14 July 2010 (BST)

Yeah, it is literally the stupidest tactic I've ever read. I considered sending it to deletions but I was too lazy to fix all the links or do any of the work to make it deletable so I just added that. --

 

 

 

 

15:39, 14 July 2010 (BST)