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

Quit it please

look i know its hard to belive i get it but dont drag it on survivor 2.0 is my roomate since he got kicked out by his girlfriend a year ago you dont have to belive me but please dont talk about it any more please its getting iritating to have somebody saying stuff thats not true thank you--Zombieman 11 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Did she kick him out because he didn't spell his love letters right? 00:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to realise I have nothing against you and your 'buddy'Survivor 2.0. As long as you two don't vandalise I don't care whether he is you, your friend or your dog. But putting stupid communication messages in the wrong place creates work for me to fix up, because you're too dense to put it in the right place. If you wanted to actually communicate your message to your mate I'd suggest getting an email address or something, MSN, whatever. Putting personal messages here to a mate is public and is so stupid and flawed that saying you and him are the same person and you're just trying to fool us is actually doing your intelligence justice. Long story short, stop fucking about with my wiki and putting things in places that they shouldn't. -- LEMON #1 00:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

no because he was actually dating 2 peaple at once aka he is an idiot--Zombieman 11 00:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Did he manage that by pretending to be two people at once? 00:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume its the classic, 2 dates at the same time approach, occurring in neighbouring buildings, running between the two. No doubt with hilarious consequences. Or its bollocks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I like that his "friend" had a mary sue-esque excuse for being kicked out. Not because he's a lowlife or because he couldn't please his girlfriend, it's because he was scoring with two chicks at once. Definitely not a common trait with multiple-personality victims. -- LEMON #1 11:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Web colours

Right. Yon. Hmm. Frankly it the most contentious one we've had in a long while. There's no doubting his sysopness, with his constant gnoming, and maintenance are of huge benefit. But it all boils down to the recent checkuser incident, and his recent points of view. (The one I'm most struck by was the questioning of my own checkuser use with Zombieman). Looking at his sysopness as a whole over time, Yon's done some good work, and in all honesty his reevaluation shows a lot of support. With this in mind, I'm leaning towards successfully re-evaluating him, but with a stern reminder about the privacy issue. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent Summation. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Combo Breaker

I've got a hypothetical question.

If in the recent Yon re-evaluation we had disagreed (I.e. One Yes, one No). What would be the outcome. The Policy seems to state "Once the Crats have made a decision." But is it like promotions, where if one of us says no, its a no, or do we both need to agree to a demotion? Or both need to agree for a repromotion? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I always assumed the "If one crat vetoes, it's a no" was because if there's a tied result, we keep things the same on the wiki. If so, it would mean they were re-evaluated.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Something similar came up during J3D's promotion. I believe Boxy phrased it as a all or nothing thing, where if one 'crat is against the promotion, it is not meant to be. Basically, you both have veto power if you believe Boxy's precedent. -MHSstaff 18:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, thats promotions, not re-evaluation. You're taking something away, not giving it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. I should have read more carefully. I'll go back to my propaganda world then. -MHSstaff 18:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A manhunt deathmatch where the victor gets their way and the loser is demoted would be a better way to settle ties IMO. -MHSstaff 18:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a precedence (only three demotions due to A/RE that I can see) and it isn't explicitly spelled out in the policy. Probably means there should be a...*gulp*...policy discussion. ~ 19:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

'Crats should man-up and set it by establishing precedent. PD is where fun and thought goes to die.-MHSstaff 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I know. But you can't establish precedence if there is no reason to :p. I was going to suggest that you contact Link since he (seemingly) ruled in The General's successful re-evaluation without input from another crat (due to no being able to get a hold of said other crat). That's the closest thing to precedence I could find. ~ 19:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's no reason to create precedent, there's no reason to make a policy discussion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Establishing a precedence is a reactive action, and Ross' question was hypothetical. Therefore there is no reason to set one (it has not happened). Starting a discussion in this case would be a proactive action. We don't need to wait for something to happen to make policy for it (nor should we). So we either determine if precedence has been established already, we wait until it happens and set a precedence at that time or we doing something proactive so that precedence is not needed. I do agree that PD is not the greatest system and I personally wouldn't open this point in discussion. Waiting to see if it happens seems like a better option honestly. crats seem to be pretty like minded and fair and just. I think they'd be able to work out a difference should it ever occur. ~ 21:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. it's essentially their job, so they should sort it out if it happens.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I should probably leave a message on DDR's talk page asking him about it then. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see wha yu did thar :D....Yeah, we all jumped on top of that one, didn't we? Ah well, at least we take an interest in each others affairs. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the general line should be that when no agreement can be reached, no action can be taken. In this case there would be no promotions, and no demotions either. This would be an extreme situation though, where neither crats would be willing to bind in. I can't ever remember or imagine this happening though in practice. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The "tie vote means no action" line of thought would lead to demotion. Re-evaluation is a "re-promotion" of sorts - the idea is to re-affirm a new term, not to present the option for a vote of no confidence. Essentially, A/RE is a streamlined A/PM that cuts out the red tape for those who are approaching the end of a term rather than seeking a new one. As such, I'd follow the same precedent as A/PM - no consensus, no sysop powers. 19:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's better to have a small group of trustworthy and competent sysops than a small group +1 where the "+1" is a bad addition. I definitely can see the others' logic since keeping the sysop would be maintaining the status quo, but the whole purpose of A/RE is to break the status quo by forcing a rethinking of their usefulness, so the default should be to reject them, not keep them. Basically, it's intended to be used to cut the fat, so that's what the default needs to be. —Aichon— 19:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole purpose of A/RE is to establish if the sysops in question is still a trusted user (check the policy) and nothing more then that. Maintaining the status quo or not has not been mentioned in the policy. I'll stick that it (this issue) is completely open to interpretation.--Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What you said is indeed its stated purpose, but the fact that the policy even exists is proof that it's intended to break the status quo, otherwise they wouldn't have written it. Prior to that policy the status quo was being maintained, and without the policy it would have continued to be maintained, but with the policy the status quo gets shaken up. However, I'll grant that this issue is open to interpretation as well. One correction to what I said earlier: I misspoke when I said "usefulness"; I should have said "trustworthiness". I'd correct it, but you already replied. —Aichon— 20:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, A/RE was made to cut the team down to its best and most reliable parts, in essence it was just to get rid of the garbage users who were a blight on the community and still managed to somehow have sysop status. Nowadays it's just a remnant of that attempt to trim down the numbers with little importance. -- LEMON #1 02:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This all according to you, you mean? I get your reasoning, it's just a different interpretation of things. However, I think it is actually a vote of confidence or no-confidence by the crats (based on community opinion). Before the A/RE policy was implemented there were no "terms", sysops could last indefinitely provided they edited a very small amount ever so often. They only could be demoted through Misconduct. A/RE was created to give the community more influence, and to establish if a "trusted user" was still a trusted user.

Still, what your staying stands, I don't see any wrong or right side here. This doesn't really solve anything, it all boils to the Crats interpretation and decision as the precedent given on A/PM can be taken both ways.--Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always treated it as a repromotion like Misanthropy said, and regarding Crat consensus I always treated it in the way Grim once told me on IRC in 08; a crat has a veto power he can use and if no decision can be agreed upon then the user won't be re/promoted. -- LEMON #1 02:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to concur. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I can't work out what would happen if I didn't. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol. For me as a crat the promotion discussions have always been very personal transparent discussions. As such I think there's a level of control for the crats to decide how their relationship will work when it comes to agreeing. If I'm against a user being promoted but Ross, for example, were to be so for a promotion that it would outweigh my own feelings against it, I wouldn't be against following through with a promotion rather than veto-ing. But in theory I prefer the veto method as a default method for sorting out bids. -- LEMON #1 12:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What you describe here, is a situation where one crat eventually gives in. But if neither is willing to give in? The worst what could happen is that Ross, for example, demoted Yonnua. And then that you DDR, would repromote him with something like "Fuck off" in the edit summary. What would happen is that you both would likely be taken up to Misconduct, with the rest of sysop team deciding on a solution. But that's extreme; Like you said, it's likely one of you would just give in, only when the crat team consists of the most stubborn people ever would this ever be an issue. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the crats reach an impass, it's as everyone's described, I believe, as the guidelines hint towards both crats reaching a decision in order to promote. Grim rejected J3D's first promotion withou consulting with Boxy at all, because Box was inactive at the time. Box inquired and Grim rightfully said that he had veto power so whether Box even (unlikely) wanted to promote J3D, it wouldn't have really mattered. If I had done that, which I wouldn't, yeah, I imagine I would be sent to Misconduct but I don't think Ross would have. Oh and I feel like being a dickhead so I'll mention that you can't leave edit summaries when changing user rights :P -- LEMON #1 13:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, heh. But I was talking about when crats would argue about what veto-power meant in A/RE, not in A/PM where it's pretty clear. It's all purely theoretical, and I'm sure it will remain this way. Can't imagine that it will ever get this far, with any of the current users. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucky we had this discussion, what with Cheese's A/RE. Gonna be a doozey. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Image Undeletions

Can images be undeleted? Some of the Red October images seem to have been deleted. Probably because they were only used in a switch template and thus showed up on unused images. If they can be undeleted, I will ark them somewhere. ~ 06:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. It's an option on wikis that Kevan unticked because of the space it requires. Sorry mate. -- LEMON #1 06:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Shit, ok hopefully I have them tucked away somewhere so I can reupload. Glad I asked before I put in a request, though. ~ 06:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Np, good luck. -- LEMON #1 06:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So, remember how I set up those edit links?

...the ones that go from the Community Portal on the main page so that you can edit Featured Articles or Community Projects? Yeah. Totally useless to normal users. Since the main page is protected, normal users don't see the edit links at all, but I didn't realize that until now since sysops can see them just fine while everyone else just sees a blank spot where they would show up. Adding some manually created ones might not be a bad idea, honestly, but I'm retired/inactive now, so... *poke* —Aichon— 08:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I never realised how... impossible it was for everyone else. Will giz try when I wake up tomorow -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In no way an abuse of power.

In relation to this, the week long process ends tomorrow. I'd say that there seems a majority of people who want to retain him. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah yeah I know. By aussie time it's already the 16th but waiting for wiki clock to go over before I discuss it with myself. Stop trying to coerce me with your bias or I'll have you straight on Misconduct, punk -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We are all just waiting until 5 minutes before the expiration to change all our votes to FUCKING STRONG AGAINST. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Vap

Bid Ends pretty soon. Thoughts? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

He's a bro, he's honest and admits when he's made a mistake, and will stick with his decision even under heat (like the confrontation by Yonnua on the bid). I really dig the dude, I think he's trusted more than enough to get promoted. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yarp. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

This actually meant a lot. It's nice to be remembered for those sorts of reasons. —Aichon— 10:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I add your comments on this were also a joy of reason and clarity. Come back! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't really left. I'm slowly removing pages from my watchlist (down from over 1000 to around 240 now), but I still check it a few times a day. >_> —Aichon— 17:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No probs mate, but you shouldn't have to say thanks, I was only calling it as I saw things :] -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and BALLS TO THE WHALLS!

DDR, you get an official BALLS TO THE WHALLS shout out for the tip. I removed the TOC from our page, and it looks a lot better. Also curious, since you are a wiki pro do you have any idea if there has been a though to making a page dedicated to discussing which groups have been around the longest? Revenant and I have come to a disagreement about his list, but he's not responding much anymore. And besides, that seems like the kind of thing that might belong on the wiki anwyay. --Dhavid Grohl 03:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The initial thought would be to check for the oldest page edits here, but since there was a logs pure a while back, that's not going to stretch back far enough. I know that DK13 tend to claim they were the first organised group, and I've not actually seen that refuted anywhere, but where it falls into place from there becomes dodgy. You can infer a rough timeline without too much effort, but actually ranking a list seems far too herculean a task to realistically manage, especially given how prone half the community are to exaggeration. 03:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wanna start a discussion for everyone to input and discuss, Open Discussion is a great place. On the wiki we allow those Open Discussions to be announced on the main page, so it's usually good for getting lots of feedback. Personally though, I think your best bet would be using the trusty wayback machine. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the machine also archived stats page. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Toughie

Not really. Looking at the comments I have a strong feeling about which way I'm going. Talk to you in a day.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

and you can email me if you get stuck. (Although I'd later publish said emails contents on the wiki, as I generally hate wiki stuff happening off wiki. which is why I never use IRC. ) --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dw, I'd just paraphrase the conversation in the cycling on the bid. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well email me if you wish, --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm fine with discussing in public. See ya tomorow. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. With the votes being ridiculously split its down to us, and in fairness, I agree completely with your position on the page in question. (Not that in my opinion you should be stating there, but hey, I'm not going to win that argument.) Beyond that the arguments for retention have less pull for me than the arguments against. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I was always going to ask you to give some analysis on my points on A/RE, so the fact you've done it already is a help. Yes, I think the ideal decision would be to bump him back down to user level, with absolutely no discrimination or hard feelings if he does some good work and comes back later and asks for the buttons. If he did that then I'd be wrong in the way I saw him (as others have) and would happily admit it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, its something I've been thinking about. From now on I'm going to try and justify my decisions a bit more clearly. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, we are going to both agree to demotion, yes? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've cycled it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A/A history

Any chance of you fixing the last 15 or so revisions of A/A? I didn't know which ones should and shouldn't be restored, and as you were involved, it might be better for you to have a look.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me, completely forgot. Just did it back to Boxy's edit, that was the one where he removed the sensitive information. Thanks for doing all the big work too, it fucking sucks hey. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Zerger Fucks

Its been fun today! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... He's so EASY! I wish so badly that we could just change his userpage and group pages to big pro-jewish pages. Lordy it would drive him mad. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, We could always make an NPOV page, after all the group IS on the stats page. BTW, if I knew exactly where some of them were in game, know anyone who would be interested? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

me me me!----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 12:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd bring a sleeper out of retirement ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:24 31 January 2011 (BST)

http://iamscott.net/1296507220982.html --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Other thing

Thanks for pointing that out. I only checked the archives back a year, and forgot that the specific section is cycled regularly. Turns out it six in the last year. As for the case, Ill read it now. As for ice, meh. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You have points, but IMO they aren't nearly enough to render the whole community's opinion useless. See, we must act on the community opinion more than our own, and that's why I put my opinion on peoples bids on A/PM and A/RE. because that's my opinion, and once it's out in the open it's a lot harder for me to be able to push it into the opinion of my decision making as a crat (anyone is free to call bias, etc.).

But whatevs, we'll see how everything goes. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. We'll have this discussion in the open in the near future. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye on

User:April Jones --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sub-category questions

A little bird told me you may be a good source to tap on questions about categories. I'm thinking of a project that would kind of pick up where this one died. Where the discussion died is we were discussing creating an ark for inclusion pages like recruit ads and nav bars and using external liks on other pages. I don't necessarily care to tackle the orphan template part of the problem right now, but I want to address the creation of an ark of inlucsion only pages as a seperate project. So my idea is that I want to make a new category, Category:Inclusions in which each group with subpages used as inclusions would have their own sub-category. The sub category would then serve as an ark for the pages, effectively clearing them from Special:lonelypages. I tried to figure out how to easily make sub categories but I'm afraid I'm lacking in the knowledge of categories to pull it off. So, can you lend a hand? ~ 21:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me be a little more specific. For my group Fight Factory, I use Fight Factory/Nav and Fight Factory/Recruitment as inclusion only pages. I'd like to categorize them in such a way that on Category:Inclusions there is a sub-category named Category:Inclusions/Fight Factory (which should be displayed simply as Fight Factory). I then click to navigate to the Fight Factory sub-category and then add internal links to my inclusion pages. The sub-category serves the dual purpose of categorising all my inclusion pages in one place and clears it from Special:lonelypages. ~ 21:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I thiiiink I've gotten a grasp on what you mean, but I don't know if it's just me, but wouldn't using the groups own category page (assuming they have one) be much easier? and then perhaps categorising their groupcategory page into Category:Inclusions? Makes a whole lot less cats. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That would work except that not every group has its own caregory. And for the purpose of clearing lonleypages, each group using inclusions would need one. We'd end up with a shitload of cats instead of a shitload of sub-cats. ~ 00:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as I'm aware, as far as mediawiki's involved there is no difference between subcats and cats, they both function in the exact same way and don't really give any benefits. So for all intents and purposes you'd be better off (imo) just making them a group category, telling them about it and categorising it into Category:Inclusions. That is, after all the purpose of categories anyway so you don't have to deal with subcats etc. The wiki software would treat them as "subcategories" later on the Inclusions cat anyway, like what you see with Category:Groups. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let me stew on it for a little. I'll create category:Inclusions herenin a bit and lay around with it. I may poke you again since as I said gategories isn't exactly my cup o' tea. ~ 00:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

np. Either way is fine, I just think using pre-existing group categories is the logical step to start, then make uniform categories for the rest of the groups just makes sense from there. Either way, all will be good. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your way worked beautifully. My way...not so much. It may be because I don't fully understand what I'm doing. Maybe you can look over what I've done and let me know if I did something wrong. I did Category:CORAM your way and Category:Inclusions/Fight Factory my way. On Category:Inclusions, CORAM is listed correctly but Fight Factory is not. I really wouldn't mind doing it the way you've suggested, would just need to rethink the project a bit and make it streamlined. Thanks for your help. ~ 06:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes. If you actually intended for it to appear at "subcategories" the whole time using your way (that may have been your intention the whole time and I didn't understand) then yeah, my way is the only way that'll work, because the mediawiki definition of a subcategory is simple a category that's been categorised- essentially a category inside a category. You can see it worked when you included Category:Inclusions/Fight Factory, but with an element of redundancy somewhat. And you'll also notice that simply categorising Fight Factory/Nav into Category:Inclusions/Fight Factory hasn't actually counted towards a link, to if said page was theoretically orphaned it would still be orphaned that way, so whichever way you choose, you'll need to do what you demonstrated with the CORAM category (which I think looks pretty good and neat too). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK that was kind of what I thought. I knew that I would have to link pages on the category page for them to be cleared from lonley pages and that will be part of the project. I think now I just need to get the project rolling. I'm hesitant to open another Open Discussion. That seems to be the place where ideas go to die. But then again it is sort of a major project so I don't want to start undertaking it without clear community support. Hmmm...~ 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah mate, just do it. Red tape and discussion, as you say, kills projects. The most successful large projects only succeed cause people just do it themselves without consulting. I'd be for it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Internet

How is it? --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Erm, mine? Yeah its good. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Crat elections Over. I'll let you handle the demotion and promotion. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. You may notice I did it so fast the human eye didn't notice it happening. Or the wiki software :| -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you got the skills, right?

I was told you're one of the big players on artwork around here, and I need a image for my group made. Are you interested in making a snazzy pic for this survivor/helpful folks group? Defender Of The Weak 00:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey mate. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do image editing just now :( I rarely do it enough as it is. Sorry. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you need? 12:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from my talk page...

Defender Of The Weak said:

Well, I figured what my group symbol would be. It's a hand reaching out from the bottom left corner, and a hand grasping it firmly from the upper-right corner of the picture, a bit of a labcoat sleeve can be seen on the upper arm. The hand in the bottom corner is scratched up a bit, thin. It's supposed to be a cartoon style, but not wacky. More like comic or something. Think you could do that for me?

--•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

i can't belive you did it.

a serial zerger really? sad sad day. well at least i still tell him to fuck off and die right? or is that against policy?----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 14:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I replied to this yesterday but my net must have faulted. Yeah, you can do what you want, and I guess the expectation for criticism will be higher now he's an op? Either way, it's fair game on the wiki, just don't make too much of a habit of it (ie. a majority of your contributions hounding a certain user over the space of a few months) else you may be tagged for harassment. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Manhunt

AH manhunt 4 your name's not on the list.--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lemon drops? --Bus driver Jim 14:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to have a break, still considering whether I want in -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 21:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on, man. It's the first Manhunt to feature the return of the Gnome! ;D --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well... he DID kill me in the first one, so I would like to get mine back. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)