User talk:Imrlybord7

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Archive seven
Bovell says hi to the popular admin. 21:24, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

New uPlay - Thursday 22nd
What was it? --  EightOhEight Talk 21:26, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Numbers?
I always see those numbers its either a -number in red or a +number in green. what are those numbers and what do they represent? "Let your plans be black as night, then strike like a lightning bolt" - Sun Tsu 21:34, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question...
...how do I update my badge on my userpage...?  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 05:03, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, man! I'll try that tomorrow! [[File:Anim-ac-130 emblem.gif]] Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 05:09, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

That's Wonderful! /sarcasm
What happened to keeping business from other wikis off of here? I honestly don't care if you're "utterly, thoroughly, and completely disgusted with" me, I answer a damn question and get a warning? And now you bring a conversation from that wiki and reply over here? I honestly don't care what you think about it, good.day.sir. Darthkenobi0 Talk 21:41, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Shove your lectures Bord. air-force-logo.jpg Darthkenobi0 Talk 21:57, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Policy
Yeah, seems fine to me, especially since it's easy to understand. Also, you really should contact Bovell, he made the draft. 22:45, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * All great additions; made it more complete in my opinion. 01:23, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually find myself in disagreement with the addition in Personal attacks. Severity is an undefined measurement, and while individual discretion is certainly not a bad thing, it is, in my opinion, against the spirit of the policy to give an individual admin full control over how long someone is blocked. A one-week block seems to be the most appropriate block duration for a severe offense, with longer blocks for repeat offenders. Block duration should be based on past offenses, because that is measurable compared to an admin deciding how offended he/she is by a certain comment. Maybe it's just my feeling that admins tend to hot-headed under pressure, but there's no argument over whether or not a user has indeed made a personal attack; "severity" is almost irrelevant. --Scottie theNerd 03:44, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal
We have a repeat offender:69.243.29.152 T C   E   B 01:03, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

MW2B log
I set it up with the owner of MW2Blog today. Darkman 4 01:54, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Re: 'Similar Article'
This is the similar article. The info in the newer article should be merged with the older one, then the new one should be deleted or turned into a redirect. Captain Hax 217 T    C     E  02:59, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

It's good to know that you know how to manage articles, but I'm just saying that, cause I saw an admin delete an article that could be made into a redirect; I've been concerned about these problems every since. Captain Hax 217 T    C     E  03:05, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

XBL
Plz?--  EightOhEight Talk 03:10, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm Warpig312, I'll add you later. Thanks for unblocking me, won't happen again.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 03:40, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * On the condition that you help me become a not noob lulz air-force-logo.jpg Darthkenobi0 Talk 03:43, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Abilities?
This might be a dumb question, but what are rollback abilities and what does it take to be a senior member? 10:25, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered my own question; it's inside of a usergroup. 16:33, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems like a good ability to have. Do 'crats just give out those rollback abilities or do you have to qualify for them? 17:05, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Alright I'll ask Saint or Chia (Dunn said to) for rollback powers. 17:12, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal.
http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.14.122.118

--Slowrider7 13:50, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

This one: http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.45.59.66 made an attack on OmegaBlades userpage.  Sactage  Talk  17:07, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

No problem.
It's what I basically live to do on the wiki. Report dirty vandals.  Sactage  Talk  17:13, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

End this blog. Please.
Papa Smurf is impersonating PGB and Dempsey141 and then denying it.

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:PaPa_SmUrF/who%27s_honestly_been_banned

Slowrider7 20:45, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Viewing deleted pages
Not sure if you know or not, but you can look at deleted pages without restoring them by clicking on the time and date link under the "Page history" heading. It will display the page in a wiki-markup format (ie. everything appears as it would in the edit box before saving a page), but that means you won't have to restore pages just to take a peek. 22:47, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * The saying goes "ignorance is bliss," but it often laughs at me. 23:08, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

PGB...
...got taken to the slammer. XD 🇨🇩

Vandal
173.183.130.124 vandalized a user page. 13:27, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna spaz out now.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY PAGE IS KABLOIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!!!????????--Dbx25 14:48, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

HQ maps
You play HCHQ right? Have they added Highrise, Skidrow etc. to the playlist, like they said earlier? I think it was meant to happen on 360 with the maps. - 15:44, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Request the banhammmer...
...on this guy. He's blanked 6 7 pages. 15:57, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Please have a say here
Your opinion will be much appreciated. Please have a say here. Thanks. 21:34, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Good news!
I can haz Yahoo?

--  EightOhEight Talk 00:07, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Not to harp
As per my most recent comment in that thread. --   Griever0311   00:17, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Ordering and higher-ups
Looking at this, I know why you decided to do that little rearrangement, but I disagree with implementing it. With the way it was beforehand, with the numbering and all, it was to show what sysops had their powers for the longest time, which in itself doesn't do much, but ordering it by bureaucrats-then-sysops seems elitest to me and honestly makes it look like bureaucrats have more say and whatnot—misknowledgements that are bad enough without any direct fuel. 00:36, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, yes, that is unfortunate, but I was only contacting you as a colleague. If I had had that thought as a non-sysop I probably still would've messaged you about it.
 * We aren't here to earn respect, we're here to make a good encyclopedia. If someone is worthy of such respect, people will give it to them without having anything nudge them along. 00:47, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think the reordering, although slight, miniscule really, will make it easier for any user wishing to find a bureaucrat.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 00:52, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not like it was already there in big, bold letters, eh?
 * But, yes, Bord, bureaucrats have to have been already respected admins, but the respect should fuel the bureaucracy, not the title fueling the respect. 01:08, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

(Not sure where to indent now, umm...)

I realized that after I had already saved the page, haha. I blame Darth; he destroyed my fragile train of thought and now the moving orphanage that was on board is at the bottom of a ravine in the Nevada desert.

To continue, ordering bureaucrats-first would in turn make it look like Joey is several fold the admin Gage is. 01:17, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're taking what he said as a way to make him seem lesser? 01:32, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Re: TMOI
Well, when I first revoked it, it was because he wasn't doing anything but blog comments (some of which, you should remember I believe). Soon after the "purge" of users that just had the box on their pages from the group, I added the little part about requirements, if he was interested in the group for the group's goals, he'd read it, I'll remind him to look them over.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 01:13, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

^Uh..Darth, wasn't that meant for Lt. Mikey? I saw on the Home-Page.^ --  Gen. Ex    T  C   E 01:15, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

My RFA
Was it an oppose or a Not yet? Also what do i need to do to submit a good RFA  T  C  E   B 01:49, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

okay, thank you T  C <font color="Gold"> E  <font color="Crimson"> B 10:28, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal
75.91.116.84

03:32, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

AK-47
Sorry about that on the AK page, I was a little quick to undo edits.. I forgot that it did 40-30. 13:20, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap... UoTM.... I'm speechless.... 13:26, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.. /faints But seriously, thanks for the nomination, I didn't know I could make an impact on this wiki in such a short time. 13:31, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not that kind of guy that goes and yells in the streets "I'm a nominate for UoTM!!!one". I'm pretty calm. 13:35, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal
64.184.193.192 vandalized Shi No Numa multiple times. /looks for banhammer

14:25, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

198.111.237.3 Another one, not as bad as the one above. 15:02, April 27, 2010 (UTC)]


 * The second one was far worse, as he included blatant description of sex as well as extreme racism. Did the second get perma-banned? 🇨🇩

UoTM
Griever and Juan's UoTM's were for May not April. EightOhEight's UoTM was for April. Doc.  Richtofen  15:19, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal
this one: http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:151.205.47.6 just did ak-47 a few times. <font style="background:black"> Sactage  Talk  21:06, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals should do this to themselves.
Seriously. 🇨🇩

Anime
Judging by your pic, I might say you like anime. Do you? <font style="background:darkblue">  4oh!4   File Not Found. 01:18, April 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually hate anime. The shows don't make sense to me. To me, every anime is the same (just like every Elvis Presely impersonator). <font style="background:darkblue">  4oh!4   File Not Found . 10:19, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes!
Unregistered user skin is Halo: Reach!

- -<font style="background:darkblue"> EightOhEight Talk 03:32, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that happens when we don't own our own site. Really ironic in that it's the main competitor to the series that we cover. 04:14, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but he implied that Communists are... Well... You saw it...
<font size="4" color="Crimson">TheManOfIron Blog 04:38, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Re: UotM
My proposal is this:
 * Make the nomination deadline at the end of the third week of the month (let's say the 23rd for argument's sake; February will of course be different).
 * The voting takes place in the last week of the month, with the winner being decided on the first of the next month.
 * Repeat for next month. Also, since the nominations close before the month ends, contributions in the last week of the previous month can be counted.

For example, let's look at our veteran editor Nutty theSurd. Nutty edits ferociously during the month of May, and is nominated by Imnotrlybord7 by May 23rd. He gains the majority of the votes and is thus awarded User of the Month for the month of May. That is, Nutty is recognised for his work in the actual month it is in. So, instead of being UotM for June (our current system), his efforts are recognised and awarded in a timely manner.

The rationale comes in two ways:
 * 1) It removes the silliness of having your achievements acknowledged two months later; thereby removing confusion over which edits are attributed to the UotM vote.
 * 2) It removes the long dead-time of voting. Most votes are done no more than a week after a nomination is put up and there's no reason to leave a UotM open for a whole month. If we can't get more than 20 people to take part within 7 days, UotM isn't worth keeping because of lack of interest.

To fit in with the current nominations, I suggest we declare two winners for May: Griever0311 for winning in the current format and the winner of the new format. Technically it would make sense, since Griever is recognised for his work during April and the second winner is recognised for May. Successive UotMs will have a single winner for their respective month. --Scottie theNerd 10:36, April 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * The 19th-23rd nomination time frame sounds fine to me. I'd rather see the users recognised in the month they worked hard in and keep the UotM within a 1-month time frame. If we stretch it out over several months, we might as well rename the contest as "User of a Month". --Scottie theNerd 11:56, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oops
Oops, added a stub. I probably need to rethink what a stub is. Probably less than 3 sentences. 13:14, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Got it. 13:40, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

RE: User of the Month
You don't delete discussions, you archive them.

But regarding the paragraph, a few things:
 * 1) Why would nominations only be allowed during a period of four days? I think the current procedure of being able to nominate anyone throughout the month is just fine, and, if anything, better.
 * 2) It's not a competition. People aren't "declared the winner".
 * 3) What is the last sentence about? Isn't that pretty much the whole point of the User of the Month project? It needs to be explained as to why it's there.

-- 23:58, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal
| Well, here you go. Chief z 02:22, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hehe, makes you wonder how dum people can be. "Oh yeah, I'm going to troll a website that I'm registered with!" Chief z 02:29, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think he should be blocked. He has already vandalized the userpages of both YuriKaslov and Slowrider7 in retaliation for reverting his stupid edits.

Random Man 0213 02:46, April 29, 2010 (UTC)