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)

aww come on you know I don't take any of this seriously. plus unlike thad. i do have a life.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 03:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know you wouldn't and you have better things to do, trust me. I was just giving you the honest answer. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

it won't be me, i'll try and push sonny into doing it more than me. :P. should not be too hard.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 13:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Manhunt

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

What kind of break is this from killing, manhunts or UD?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 14:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A bit of all. DDR sorely needs to help out his local Kilt Store, the manhunts had been sucking his time away from him. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Probationary Sys-Op

I had hoped that you'd see it on Ross' talk and save me the trouble of having the same discussion in multiple places. But it has been sitting there for some days now, so I better bring it here: User_talk:Rosslessness#Probationary_Sys-Op Your thoughts on that as one of the current crats? Think that it would be a worthwhile policy suggestion? -- Spiderzed▋ 14:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

kk -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Spiderzed

Well, yeah. His answers to my inane questions were excellent. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm going out now in a rush, will be back in 3 or so hours for a drunk promotion if he's not promoted by then. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely not going to bother then. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

you probably should have. I almost made a 2 paragraph rant about him. Had to cut it down to the bare minimum to not feel/seem like a jackass -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Front Page Content

Any chance we could get the Vasectomy Tour onto the front page? TBP got their tour on there, and we're basically doing the same thing.

Also, I'm thinking about putting forward a time restriction on re-appeals for sysopness so that Cheese can't rere-apply after failing reevaluation again, how would I go around doing that, and what're your thoughts on the proposal? --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 12:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries on the Tour, Template:Community Projects is the place to go to have your event announced, we're trying to support most events which aren't just 2 man duds so you are welcome to add it there. Once it's on that template, it will appear on the Main Page.

As for the re-appeal idea, UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion is the place to go. As the rules say down the bottom, you make your page, ie. UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Limit Re-application timeframe or whatever you'd like, then describe it on the page. You'll get input on the talk page.

My opinion is that it isn't a really bad idea, but there may be some issues with it, for example, if Cheese's demotion had been seen as a little unjust, it would be unfair to have Cheese limited to waiting, say, 3 months before having to reapply again, if he theoretically had the community support to pass. But you could then counter that with the argument that the community can't change enough in only a couple of weeks enough to warrant reapplying someone? Who knows, if you put it up it'd be bound to get some decent discussion going. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

An end to this process

Yeah promote him, having seen his work on at least 4 other wiki's i'm happy for him to gnome it up. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah it's not the gnoming I'm worried about. either way, done done. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Lets try and go a week without promoting anyone. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We are sooooo gonna be responsible for super huge angry fighting sysop team. It's a big cycle, after a year we'll be forcing the black sheep out again. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Simple. We re-evaluate boxy in three months, you lose the Crat election, and I resign just before it happens. Nothing to do with us. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Bastards -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:37 17 February 2011 (BST)

helping out

I am interested in becoming more active on the wiki and help with boring, janitorial tasks - do you know where I might start? --C Whitty 19:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not DDR, but as a start I can point you at Aichon's list here. Those points are overall served, but suffer still occassionally from slacking (especially menial tasks as closing votes, cycling Developing Suggestions, updating wiki news or archiving old suburb news). Particularly categorizing images and pages (#9) is good work, as it teaches a bit about using special pages and about categories that exist on that wiki. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Point one under "Drama Work" on the same page is a good one. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I will look at those and im pretty newb at technical stuff so just let me know if I mess up--C Whitty 21:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Premature...

Methinks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but do the standard "hang around for a month or two and redo it" speech. Its the only real criticism of him --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Protection Scheduling

Where do requests for them go? I want to make protection of concluded polls a scheduled task. ~ 04:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

NVM. It looks like they just go at the bottom of the protections page but that section was deleted during cycling not long ago. I've added it back. ~ 04:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Betaville

Hey. Do you by any chance remember a very old suggestion called 'Betaville'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Subsist (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 March 2011.

I definitely remember hearing it. There have been a few test locations, both in the suggestion system and in user pages, so I don't remember where it specifically is, or if the betaville still exists. How come? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I got this covered. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Extraneous Template

Thanks for the help man --Bjornkarl 08:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Technical USER-NAME enquiry

Will like to check with some1 active and senior in wiki whether username is case-sensitive or not. Have 2 northboundsnow acc in wiki? check whether can delete one or another. check help page, for group deletion,nt user account. --NORTHBOUNDSNOW 02:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, on wikis it's a little odd, long story short, all usernames are case sensitive, and no matter what you make your username, the first letter will always be a capital I'm pretty sure. Eg. dancedancerevolution would become Dancedancerevolution. So you're saying you have two accounts and you'd like the unused one deleted right? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

i'm sure you will find a use for this.

the file might be large. but fuck it have fun with it. i know you will find some use for it.
--User:Sexualharrison 03:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

luls. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

and about my sig i'm not quite folling you. so i add two more ~~ to my code on my temple page?--User:Sexualharrison 03:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, your sig code is at User:Sexualharrison/sig. We use 4 tildes to sign, but if you use three, it comes up as just the sig and no timestamp, like -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution. Conversely, if I did 5, it comes up as just the timestamp, like 04:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC).

So, you can manually input the 5 tilde code into your signature code, and then use three tildes, it will use only your signature but because your signature has the timestamp embedded into it, it should pop it out anyway. And once it's in your sig you can manipulate it with usual font codes and stuff. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just put the timestamp from the time that he last saved his Sig? I think he may need to use a combination of :subst and the currenttime magic word. ~ 04:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What I was thinking was that he might be able to get away with the <includeonly>~~~~~</includeonly> code. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if it works. Test. ~ 19:33, 5 March 2011

One minute later. Nope. Still using the time that I save my sig. Test. ~ 19:33, 5 March 2011

Gah. He'll have to do it as explained on Boxy's talk page then :( -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah boxy nailed it I think. ~ 07:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

boxy went way over my head and it got all wonky. here is the code I have now.. what do i change or add? <small><div style="display: inline-block; height: 14px; width: 18px; overflow: hidden; vertical-align: text-bottom;">[[User:Sexualharrison|<span style="position: absolute; display: block; font-size: 0px; height: 14px; width: 18px;"> </span>]][[Image:Boobs.sh.siggie.gif|18px]]</div> [[User talk:Sexualharrison|bitch]]</small> --User:Sexualharrison 15:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, I think what boxy said was to use the localtime, localday, localmonthname,and localyear templates (if you use BST) in the box where you put the code for your sig in the preferences. Like so, except I used the currenttime, etc templates (for UTC). -- †  talk ? f.u.16:02 5 March 2011 (UTC)

i'm stoned and slow. can you lay out the code.. plus I think i'm on (UTC) this <small>16:02 5 March 2011 (UTC)</small>is what i don't under stand how to do?--User:Sexualharrison 16:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The important thing is that the code is not going to be added to you sig page. Its got to be added directly into you preferences. You should be able to just copy any code that refers to localtime and date from boxy's page and paste it right behind your sig in your nickname preferences. Sorry, but I'm on a a tablet comp right now and copypasta is a real pain in the ass without a pointing device. But itshould besomething like {{SUBST:nosubst|User:Sexualharrison/sig}} <small>{{subst:LOCALTIME}} {{subst:LOCALDAY}} {{subst:LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{subst:LOCALYEAR}} (UTC)</small>. Copy that right into your nickname preferences and tick the raw signatures bocx. Remember to sign with three tildes. I think that should work. ~ 17:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirming that the abvove does in fact work. ~ 21:23, 5 March 2011

yup all fixed thanks for the help--

bitch 12:08 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Request

As an Can you change

• the name of my page Guides:An In Depth Guide to Forming Groups Part 1 into "Guides: Guide to Forming Groups"
• the name of my page Guides:An In Depth Guide to Forming Groups Part 2 into "Guides: Guide to Forming Groups Part 2"
• delete or turn my page Guides:An In Depth Guide to Forming Groups into a redirect for the first page?

Thanks.--Penguinpyro 23:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Please use A/MR directly in the future. You also don't need an op to turn pages into redirects, but can do it yourself. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

formating question

on my main user space at the bottom is there a way to get all the templates lined up horizontally? it just seems like a waste of space. and i've been on a two week vaca and I'm quite bored.--

bitch 23:29 7 March 2011 (UTC)

boxy did a similar thing User:Boxy, using that code should work (the one with all the lines of {| and | and then |}, that forms a table) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

you just should have said no.. man that looks complicated--

bitch 04:18 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry mate, it's actually a lot more easier than it looks. I'll explain when I have the time, gotta duck out now. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Like this is gonna sit untill ddr handles it. :P Not when therz wikistuffz to be done. I made ot pretty for ya harrison. ~ 05:00, 8 March 2011

know what happens when you do shit like that? YOU GET GOLD stop doing such good work :P --

bitch 05:36 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Now if I could be bothered to fixed my own stupid looking user page I'd be doing good. ~ 06:00, 8 March 2011

brb

I have to go for a bit but will expand on the a/vb case later if needed. Just didn't want ya'll to think I was ditching the discussion in the heat of things to avoid it. I gots shit to do. ~ 01:52, 8 March 2011

Lol no worries, it's cool. It's not really such a huge deal anyway. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Minecraft

I decided to buy the game, and I have gotten a lot of fun out of it the past three days. Cave exploration is awesome. Quite addicting I have to say. How long have you been playing survival? --Thadeous Oakley Talk 08:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ermm can't be sure, maybe around september last year. I play SMP now on a server I share w/ a friend. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

C4NT hysterical err I meant historical

i think it's time. they are off the stats page. and if there is any group that should be historical it's RON BURGUNDY and his 7 time award winning CHANNEL FOUR NEWS TEAM. i would do it myself. but I always muck up the news page when ever I try.--

bitch 13:58 19 March 2011 (UTC)

is it down for good? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

well i was one of the original members with axe hack. I've checked into the forum and got no response. i mean it would be a different story if they were still on the stats page. i think it's time.--

bitch 22:37 19 March 2011 (UTC)

C4NT is still up there on the stats page with 14 active members. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Phewwwww :D -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

i'm waiting the hear from 23skdoo or winka. but they did post something on the forum in January. anyway what would be the big deal? there are tons of old historical groups with members still roaming around.. the dead, BBB, FU, etc etc.--

bitch 03:00 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My vote would be the same as the dead; even though they are still sort of active, there is NO way I'd ever vote no for their historical status. Just so sad is all -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

i'm going to give this till june if i don't hear anything.. can we cycle it in for voting? fair?--

bitch 14:18 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean submit it? That sounds fair. Although again it'll make me sad -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reserved Spot

Meh --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I find you too lenient. Maybe I'm strict but come on... --Thadeous Oakley Talk 00:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't reply was cause I don't know what you're talking about, I wasn't ignoring you, sorry. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I was being vague. It's just after all that stupidity on A/VB, then a retarded promotion bid, my patience doesn't go on forever nor do my sugar-coating skills. Just look at the mess. And he (DA) is actually being serious about becoming sysops? Lol, I think you gave him the idea he actually has a chance with this bid. You know, I wouldn't make such a fuss about it if he and the other A/PM meatpuppets/ "joke squad" would be actually trying to be contributive and active on this wiki. But no, all they do is make one stupid joke or fuck-up after the other and leave us to clean the mess. And when you call them out on it, they get pissed off and suddenly want to be taken "seriously". Boohoo Thad is a meanie, I didn't mean it like that whine whine. Ugh. /rant --Thadeous Oakley Talk 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I used to react like that too, it's very easy to get embroiled in the drama, I think as sysops we all have to to an extent, so it's hard. But when you take a step back, you realise the only thing they are really causing a mess on is Recent Changes, the reaction from others and the mess they try to do can be easily contained and ignored for the most part. Personally I try and treat most of them with respect as regular wiki users and to not justify their troublemaking by reacting and trying to make them stop, cause they won't.

I think in the long term we'd like guys like the IRC mobs to be able to respect us and UDWiki by extension, because it'd be nice for us to be used as extensively as we used to in the earlier years. I try and aim for that, even when they go on their attention sprees -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're saying to tolerate, no swallow their stupidity? I'm sorry man, but I disagree. Perhaps at one point I should stop arguing, but I can't turn a blind eye just to earn their respect which I honestly care little about. Either they keep in line with the rules and be productive something I would respect, or they get out. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Keeping them in line with the rules was 10% of what you did earlier today. the other 90% was faffing about justifying their mischief, as per usual in our recent admin cases. Trust me, if you weren't right a good most of the time, I'd have an actual issue with it, but I don't. Just food for thought. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happily eating the thoughts, and I appreciate the input but still slightly confused. How exactly am I justifying their mischief? --Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

the arguing, the promotion bid edit warring. the hounding on talk pages and threats of a/a, etc. it never works with them, it's the reaction they enjoy. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but this was brought to my attention and I really feel it needs addressing in the most promptest of ways. You're even stopping me from writing a lab report right now, I hope you think you're special. Thad, you really, really, seriously, OMGWTFly need to chill out. It is reasons like this that I was worried about your promotion bid (and, hell, you even agreed with me). This is not your job, and this is not something that you do to live off, much as the "irc mob" are not raiders that live via scavenging -- although Ed's appearance may deceive you. DDR is, mostly correct: you do do a lot of oddly-right stuff, but at the same time you go about it completely the wrong way. Your responses only further to justify this, and I can promise you that if you keep going along the MisterSrsBsnGame route then you won't keep the position you're in now.

This is one of the very few, rare moments you will get a 'wtfhonest' response from me, as most of the time when someone does something stupid (like reporting a needless edit to A/VB, and then escalating the case in the way you guys did yesterday) it tends to end up with me laughing at them. Good luck. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 22:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I hope you realize we were discussing our different attitudes towards you people. I'm not taking back any of my rulings, nor do I plan to be more lenient in enforcing the rules. Perhaps I shall be less arguing but we'll see how it goes. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SA

User:Lolwat64 this alt get an unblock to?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

He used it to vandalize the wiki during his 6 month ban. It was decided to be perma'd so I doubt it. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, vandal alts getting perma-block is pretty standard. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Summary

This is because it's only relevant why it was ruled that way. Although it is the reason why only one case is being discussed there and not the second one since there should have been an escalation for him for the karloth case. I didn't want to add more to the other discussion and thought it would be best to clarify that question here and leave it be. --Karek^maps?! 07:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Kempy!

Aww come on. That's about as good faith as it gets, and should have been left fixed. :| --If my name was MisterGame AKA Thadeous Oakley, I would be a massive flaming faggot. >:| 02:04, 29 March 2011 (BST)

I'm not saying it's bad faith, but the rules are pretty clear, and (as much as I have to fucking correct these from newbs or meapuppets) It REALLY isn't hard to just do four tildes yourself tbh -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:06, 29 March 2011 (BST)

...it really is, when you're as pissed up as I was that night. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |

 

14:36, 30 March 2011 (BST)

Holy crap.

Why do I ever make the mistake of trying to have a good faith discussion with you? None so blind as who will not see. :| ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:08, 30 March 2011 (BST)

He wants to know what problem I have with you as a user, I say it. Though if you're talking about the sheer size of the discussion, I'm not the one to blame. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:17, 30 March 2011 (BST)

I'd also still like you to still participate in what we were talking about though, if you want to keep focussing on what we were talking about before the tangent ruined the flow. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:27, 30 March 2011 (BST)

Yeah, fair enough I suppose. Things always escalate with more people.
Sorry, had to go AFK and will probably be hitting the hay early tonight. FWIW, I have lots of free time due to medical issues, so I'm keen but erratic. Some would say that's not much different to usual. To be continued… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:39, 30 March 2011 (BST)

Also, remind me, do I have you on teh Facetwits? I miss chatting to you, man. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:51, 30 March 2011 (BST)

Yeahboi I do, I'll hit you up via the link you dropped on A/PM. Don't worry about answering my questions if you don't have the time, it's not really the place for A/PM so much anymore and my opinion doesn't mean much anyway -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:28, 30 March 2011 (BST)

Let me re-read and see if I missed anything… I thought I had more or less answered via another response to someone else, but I may have missed something. That conversation you had with karek was huge, and while about me at – least in part – not really directed at me.
The simple answer to “why do you need the buttons?” is basically “there is stuff I can do easily to improve the place using the admin bit which no current sysops seem to know how to do”. There is more to administrator than buttons, you know. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:09, 31 March 2011 (BST)

The Rules

Knew there was a template for that, just couldn't recall it for the life of me. Thanks. --Karek^maps?! 08:42, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Np. They're all over the place with various colours and styles if you can remember where to look. I usually just go on old policy discussions -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:21, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Now that I think of it the Tommy Gun page would probably have been a good place to look too. --Karek^maps?! 11:20, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Warning?

Can I have mine struck please? I asked a while back and got no joy.... its been a bloody long time now and i must have made the 250 edits. --Honestmistake 20:22, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Hi.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:45, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Pretty sure they have to go through A/DE now? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:20, 9 April 2011 (BST)

OK, when did that happen tho? --Honestmistake 16:25, 9 April 2011 (BST)

When A/DE was created as per the Better Vandal Data policy. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:33, 10 April 2011 (BST)

A/DE

Saying I wasn't there so I won't take sides doesn't make it true. Your whole description is worded to basically tell voters that Amazing was unfairly banned with no reference to the case/s what so ever. Makes me wonder if you've actually ever read them or if there was any intent to actually try and have an informed vote on the reasons he was banned at and past perma. --Karek^maps?! 21:34, 8 April 2011 (BST)

I didn't bother because I'd feel like a broken record repeating stuff that was so heavily documented and discussed in the policy discussion, as mentioned in the appeal header. As for the way I worded it, I simply mentioned the largest rationale people had towards getting him unbanned, other than that they just wanted him back for the lols or because he wanted it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:17, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Suburb danger maps

Hi DDR,

Would you have any issue with me reverting all the recently "rescouted" southern 'burbs until the current statuses can be confirmed? Gordon 14:44, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Yes, but only because for the most part, he isn't wrong. Revert the ones you know are wrong first. See more at A/VB discussion -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:45, 9 April 2011 (BST)

this is getting on my nerves

this and this

these pictures are boarding on offensive. i mean i understand loading them up for satire or parody, but whats the point of these really? what does this page have to with a zombie apocalypse? -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 15:33 9 April 2011 (UTC)

i really don't think the udwiki should be a place where you post out of game politics and hate speech. if it has some context to the game of UD than fine.. but this is just nazi propaganda whats the policy on this? if the server was in Germany keven would be going to jail. -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 15:43 9 April 2011 (UTC)

These are shock images yes. While we don't have a policy on these you can bring them up at deletions or, maybe A/VB though the former choice seems better. If it would be deleted, then only on grounds of offensiveness. The argument that the images have nothing to do with urbandead, while true, also goes for about 90% of the stuff uploaded over the years so that point is pretty moot.

On an unrelated note, you should not be complaining about these if, like you said, you really intend to unban Cornhole through a permaban-appeal. Kinda a conflict of interests you have there. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:15, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Current opinion is still that Bankschroef is a different person than Corn. (At least, no one has brought up contrary evidence since the last A/VB case.) As little as we can escalate the former for the actions of the latter, we can't put blame on Corn for vandalism that is committed by Bankschroef. - Oh, and as for German law, the swastika pics alone would be more than sufficient to be considered as penal crime. Sadly(?) we are bound to British law. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:26, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I'm not saying that Bankschroef = Cornhole, I'm merely comparing them: their pattern of actions is pretty much the same. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:30, 9 April 2011 (BST)

As for any law it's not really relevant. We actually have specific things we need to comply with that would allow the deletion of these images or pages but, right now, just vote on the deletions vote I put up and speedy these when it's done. --Karek^maps?! 20:14, 9 April 2011 (BST)

thad you really have no idea when I'm joking do you?-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 23:10 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

On what grounds did you delete that image from Wotan's Temple? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:34, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Speedy deletion, see A/D#Recent Actions -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:37, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Fuck, that shouldn't have happened. I agree that Karek shouldn't have altered the page midway through deletion but technically it was altered the moment that image got deleted. Image should have been kept until a decision was made about Wotan's Templar. I'm not blaming anyone in particular but we have a nice mess on our hands now. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:44, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Hardly. Can't fight the masses, even if they do make one rule for every shock group/nazi group and another rule for the only one that actually succeeds in getting a reaction out of them.

However, my rationale is that it was most probably the only thing that should have been removed on that page, as well as the link Karek removed himself (and will now earn Bschoff a vandalism slap). I was actually really confident 12 hours ago that the community would be consistent when dealing with offensive troll pages but it looks like it's not the case. That was an oversight on my part and my fault, sorry, however since Karek changed the page back to the decent version (which I totally agree with BTW, only don't agree that he did it halfway through a deletion) it's become a non-issue, no one besides Rev I think voted on the page while it was in the state it was when it was the pre-Karek reverting, but without said image, if you get my drift (sorry, v tired tonight) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:49, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Eh, okay. Now hush, of to bed with you Charlie. UDwiki isn't worth the loss of sleep ;) -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:56, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Lol. I'm doing assignments, so UDWiki is the unfortunate host of my 5 minute break every half hour or so until I finish and/or faint -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:58, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Ah, you're pulling an all-nighter. Nothing beats working on belated schoolwork till the wee hours of the night. Yeah, I've been there. Good luck bro. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:04, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Oh, and remember; powernaps are your friend, just don't 'nap too long or you'll enter a deep (REM) sleep.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:15, 10 April 2011 (BST)

It's probably less about acting consistent, and more about showing that no one likes Corn and his nazi zerg circus. Don't think it will do anything even if the deletion gets through (which it probably will). Even if it gets deleted, Bank can always pull a 82nd Airborne and create a new group called "Totenkopf-SS", and when that gets deleted he can create one called "Buttmolio's Bald Bleasure Boy Bridgade", and so on and so on until he or the community gets fed up. In fact, that has already happened looking at NSU and Combat 18. The only way to really put a stop on him is the vandal escalation system, and for that, we need to catch him breaking the rules. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:42, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Oh we find plenty of rules to bend so the nazis manages to break them. Under your hypothesis (which will probably be true) I foresee escalations going his way simply for making the groups. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:54, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Maybe when the new group creation spam gets really excessive. But as long as torches and pitchforks get handed out and someone is willing to lead the peasant's assault on the castle of the mad count, he'd have no other means to keep us his right to have some sort of group page. Unless the goal is to bully him away (which is something I could get behind), this would better be resolved by arbies to get him to tone down his group page a bit. (Which would also make it much easier to get him escalated when he steps over the line agreed by arbies.) -- Spiderzed▋ 15:21, 10 April 2011 (BST)

See that would be the best route, as it wouldn't be as easily abused by masses who just want to throw him out on his arse because he's doing his job properly- annoying people -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:38, 10 April 2011 (BST)

So a few things to point out.

1) This isn't an edit conflict and historically arbies is always abused.

2) You don't arbies with someone who obviously won't be present to be involved.

3)You're making a fit over something that's not actually an issue, as I pointed out the vote is on the page, revision history, usage, existence and all. Just because something is a documented zerg group doesn't mean we document it on the wiki and when the page owner is banned and the person editing the page is a suspected alt it's generally something we should at least discuss deleting, especially when it's purpose is trolling the wiki.

4) I'll strike my vote today if you guys all stop acting 'tarded trying to figure out how you can delete a relevant and realistic vote because I undid vandalism and also happened to be the only user who took the time to create the A/D request other people wanted as a solution to their issue. I don't actually care what happens to the page, I put it up for a vote because other people were concerned about the validity of the page's existence and purpose and that's just what you do when trying to be helpful. I undid the vandalism revision of the page for the same reason, you guys aren't willing to act because you're all too busy worrying about the smallest things to deal with the nonsense the way you obviously should have to start with.

It should also be noted that you're comparing this group page's right to exist to groups that weren't created by vandals and being used to vandalize by the group members. Please please please tell me you guys have the common sense to understand why this is closer to the group I linked in the deletion vote than what you're citing because I'm seriously worried for this place if as sysops you can't. --Karek^maps?! 23:41, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Oh yeah, one other thing. Delete the revision with the link I removed, that's what you were supposed to do in regards to that case and it's something that, while it exists in the history, still validates the votes. Part of the vote you're complaining about is because the vote would get around you guys not doing your job. Please either step up or get out of the way and do it the right way. --Karek^maps?! 23:41, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I've already left this alone, don't know why you're dragging me back into an argument about it. Deleting single contributions is only usually done on this wiki in serious matters pertaining to either IP, IRL (personal info) or copyright. Other instances where it's asked for is considered draconian (which is literally the word that's described the request every time). Without trying to push this on, I have to say it: trying to tell me otherwise will only validate my QQing about "one rule for everyone, another for nazis" that I seem to cry about a lot atm. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:17, 11 April 2011 (BST)

In fact, I have removed the revisions that still contain the link, on the grounds that it is not just vandalism, but also a potential violation of TOS. Feel free to misconduct me.
As for Karek, I still think that A/D is the wrong route to stop the nazis. They will just go gypsy and squat on another name, until they get driven away once more. However, I'm not above the wiki law. If the majority thinks that WT should be deleted, and does so by the proper channel, the request has to be carried out, even if I personally both disagree with the stance and think that it is the wrong way to deal with the issue. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:29, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Sorry I hadn't considered that as an option this case (by copyright I actually meant TOS too but had completely overlooked the potential TOS issues that could arise from that, silly me), so you did the right thing. Deleting vandal contributions individually on a whim though is wrong. Not sure if thats what karek was asserting, probably wasn't now the TOU aspect is brought into context. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:08, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Actually it really was. The vote was put up because certain users had obviously wanted something like this put up and there was actually relevant precedent of doing this in the past. I've been harping on you guys because of the mindset even having the above discussion shows about how little you guys understand the A/D process and the fact that the ToS violating revision hadn't been deleted sooner as part of ruling on the A/VB case related that's been all but concluded for a while now. --Karek^maps?! 16:46, 11 April 2011 (BST)

"Harping on you guys" = paining me about it -.- And we understand about the A/D process thanks, every decent precedent and culture of consistency is being thrown out the door on a daily basis by the community regarding these nazia, so I don't think it's the few of us who doesn't understand processes. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:28, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Just because both pages have swastikas or refer to something involving dead people doesn't make them the same or even close. Nor does fixing a page so it is useful if kept during a vote make the vote any less valid when revisions aren't time sensitive. --Karek^maps?! 03:58, 12 April 2011 (BST)

That wasn't what I was talking about. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:21, 12 April 2011 (BST)

You were the one that said it was about nazism to claim precedent being ignored. Forgive the confusion caused by differences between what you mean and what you say. --Karek^maps?! 05:16, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Sorry I don't forgive you since you aren't the person most of this was aimed at so it wasn't really your business to butt in and try to understand anyway... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:31, 12 April 2011 (BST)

If you don't want people jumping into your conversation, I hear there's a new-fangled invention called email you may want to look into. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:41, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Lol! Jumping in isn't the part that bothered me, dw. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:03, 12 April 2011 (BST)

When you're talking about my actions I tend to feel it's appropriate for me to explain why I did them to avoid confusion that has happened to me frequently before. In this case I felt someone had to have a word about this remove or ignore the vote nonsense. --Karek^maps?! 02:39, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Ghosts

I put your ghost page resources up in A/MR for movement to more appropriate namespaces. It seemed like a better solution than writing new resources and since you were already using them as primary documents it just seemed right. Hopefully this won't be a problem for you. --Karek^maps?! 00:02, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Absolutely not, much better idea. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:03, 11 April 2011 (BST)

thanks

Hi - didn't realise it was a problem. Thanks for fixing it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Betamaxx (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

No proobs bru -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:07, 11 April 2011 (BST)

I lol'd

At this edit summary. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:37, 13 April 2011 (BST)

LOL i like making people lol -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:28, 13 April 2011 (BST)

What is the deal

With airline food… uh… this? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:43, 15 April 2011 (BST)

This one, I suppose. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:50, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Danke. Whoops! Looks like nobody checked for inclusions… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:53, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Zilly me and zilly karek -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:54, 16 April 2011 (BST)

list o arbies

i did the right thing right? i changed his name to keep with the formatting and what not.. good faith and what not.. blech --

bitch 04:10 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ye -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:04, 19 April 2011 (BST)

/Sig

Please do not vandalize my user page, the precedent is very clear on this. You seem like a cool video game, but if you persist I will have to report you to Wikilaw. --甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 03:56, 20 April 2011 (BST)

I guess you better do that. But my feet are fast and they don't like standing on signatures that break the page -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:58, 20 April 2011 (BST)

I don't know what any of that means --甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 04:04, 20 April 2011 (BST)

meaning yer sig breaks the page.. just revert it back to the fixed code please. someone fixing your sig or any code you enter in good faith is allowed and encouraged. and DDR is quite the wiki dragon so this should get interesting.. anyone wanna raise the drama level?--

bitch 04:07 20 April 2011 (UTC)

wikidragon more like WIKI LAW – Nubis ^NWO 04:10, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Wiki dragon?! Fuck me! And when you do it won't be rape since I asked for it. --Laughing Man 04:12, 20 April 2011 (BST)

If you want to add an NPOV section to my sig, that's fine, so long as it's clearly marked and separate from the main signature. I think we can get an impartial description of my character traits that won't provoke any drama. --甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 04:14, 20 April 2011 (BST)