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)