User talk:Liquidhelium

Note: I dislike having a long talk page, since it increases the scrolling distance to get to my newest messages. Therefore, don't be surprised if conversations disappear into my black hole.

Anyone who uses British spelling or date format on my talk page can expect to be swiftly ignored.

RE:Forum Header
If I changed it, then all instances of the header using the current method would have to be changed, and all the admins would have to learn a new way of doing things yet again. However, I made it the way it is for the sake of flexibility. Simple parameters (see the UOL lesson on templates) should be reserved for parameters that must exist at all times, otherwise the template can potentially become more complex. It also makes it easier to add onto the template later if we are not using excessive simple parameters. Sorry. 21:26, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed you undid the edit by a bot changing the forumheader template. Use common sense. Even though the proposal only stated that future discussions need to be archived via the method in the proposal, that does not mean that all discussions before the date the proposal was implemented must not use the new method. I understand why you have some issues with the method of stickying things within the template, though there was clear consensus that the new method of archiving the discussions is superior (if not in every single way, to the extent that I can't see why anyone would disagree). If somebody changes the way the thread was archived to the new way while fixing a few other things on the page, they are not doing any damage to anything. I'm not sure why you are so concerned about it. 23:18, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for sounding so aggressive in the above comment. Anyway, you forgot to do the archive thing right (and I say "right" because it was determined it must be that way via consensus) in the thread you recently closed. 23:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it was not the result of forgetfulness (and I was trying to assume you were not intentionally disregarding consensus), it still needs to be done the way the community requires it. What's wrong with it, anyway? 23:19, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. As an admin, you are expected to follow consensus. 23:24, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you would call me out on the admin part. I considered saying "You, especially as an admin, are expected to follow consensus". First of all, RS:BB dies where consensus begins. You can't use it to get around anything determined by consensus. As for RS:UCS, I can't see how refusing to follow consensus because you refuse to change a habit is common sense. Please change the way you archived the discussion. 23:30, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at why the proposal was passed. First, it stops the "this thread has not been edited in x number of days..." warning from appearing once the discussion is archived. That alone makes the change not useless. Second, it made the archive template internal, which can make for cleaner changes later if we need to make them. At the time, it also stopped needless extra space from appearing, though this was later fixed. Anyway, you must archive discussions the way that was proposed and approved via consensus. There is no policy to get you around this. 23:36, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing this anymore, because you're being irrational (I'm sorry I had to say that). There was consensus to make the change, and you must follow that consensus. If you have a problem with it, go back to the Yew Grove and try to change it. Until that time, you must follow consensus. 23:43, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest you look at this exchange between Azaz and Bonzii. It's quite a bit like the current situation. 00:24, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Azaz's talk
 * Bonzii's talk
 * Zip-e-do-da, zip-e-de-day 00:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I am pretty much done. However, don't get mad at me for saying this was annoying. If you wanted it to stop, you could have accepted all this earlier (and I honestly believe you believed what you just signed this whole time). 00:32, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Signing area
Don't be sad, I was gonna have the page deleted as it bores me now and has gone unedited for 2 month, if you want to can delete it now. 21:37, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Defining bureaucrats project
So let me get this straight... A 'crat did defining admins and an admin is now defining 'crats... what's next? Helpers defining rollback and IPs defining staff??? 21:54, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Defining b'cats
Well I'm not really sure what moderating it will involve. Though I would think I would still like to. Perhaps you could tell me what it involves? 22:05, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Me? Knowledge of b'cats? Hmm...sorry, I don't think I'm your guy. 22:14, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

-- 00:26, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

FatNooblet's UserPage
Pssst! You only undid one of the IP's edits, there was 2. 00:27, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

A DAB of UOTMustard
Honestly I can't think of anything to say about crats that isn't also applicable to admins. I don't think the additional tools that crats adds any additional expectations. If something comes to me, I'll let you know and see if it can work for something. Also I shall have to decline the UOTM nomination. Not for any reason to do with you, I just don't really approve of the whole UOTM project, and would rather not be involved with it. 01:27, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the expectations of bureaucrats as they pertain to AEAE and neutrality are any different than those for a sysop. In my mind, the only difference between a bureaucrat and a sysop is the extra tools that a bureaucrat gets. And in this wiki, the crat doesn't get to use those extra tools at a whim. The main thing is user rights, and they can't do that unless someone passes an RFA or signs the rollback thing. Revisiondelete is only used in cases of personal information and pornographic content, which is cut and dry. There's no real judgment call to be done there. So I don't see anything that can be said about a crat that wasn't said about an admin in the sysop definition project. 23:06, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that. If a crat's opinion is taken more seriously than an admin's it is because they do not post that much. That is not an aspect of being a crat, that is a problem with our current set of crats. And I also disagree that an admin can say strong oppose/support but a crat cannot. That, to me, seems a stark violation of AEAE. 23:11, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

RE:
Strange..it replaced a break tag with the wikimarkup for bold..I have absolutely know idea why that happened  01:52, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Konami code
Yes, it could definitely be changed to only work or not work on certain namespaces. -- 03:17, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Looking back
Yeah...that has changed a little. 04:35, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

konami code
I have just reread the original thread and I see there was NO consensus to implement it. While many of the opposers had certain objections that were shown to be not a concern (a concern for damage to the wiki), that alone should not have allowed the code to be implemented. It would be proper for you to simply disable it on this basis.--Degenret01 05:01, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

wtf
Why did you delete my page?

Gee, helpful
"I deteled it because players don't deserve articles. --LiquidheliumTalk 10:05, September 7, 2010 (UTC)", first off, L2spell; second, you mentioned the same policy I did >.<. 10:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Uhh
Hey, I just wanted to know if your pissed at me. 15:45, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Re:DAP
Well, the entire point of the previous DAP was to make sure the community had its say, while I'm sure I could write up something, I have the impression that it would go against the aim of encouraging discourse by as many wikians as possible. Also, don't be surprised if you have to hunt people down to moderate the sections, including those you may disagree with, that's the only way I managed to get the first one off the ground.-- 20:33, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Konami code
I honestly don't really care either way. I still think that there was rough consensus was favor of implementing it, but I wont be offended if you overturn it. -- 22:33, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not based on the number of supports and opposes but on the weight of arguments. Opposing something because its pointless is totally stupid. If its pointless then they just don't make use of it. There is no negative consequence to the konami code, only positive. 23:08, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I added my 2c to the discussion. You'll have to excuse the re-hashing of my closing statement, I'm drained from school -- 23:10, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said. Exhaustion -- 23:12, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * btw are you new here? -- 23:24, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

For some people that just need to see it in a new light.

143 Glitch
I swear. It happened. Please undelete it! I SWEAR it HAPPENED! Agreon 01:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I feel better having at least a section. :No reason. 06:55, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

RfD's
Sorry I was busy with other stuff and forgot about it. I think the two Iestin articles are viable for a merge, but not a full deletion. If someone reads the book and sees the name Iestin, they might come and search it. They should be taken somewhere, even if that page does nothing but say he is never seen in the game. Something you could do is merge it with the book in which they are mentioned, but I think its better to just merge them together. You may think that this is parallel to the likes of Underwater City and Lucien's daughter, but I don't think it is. underwater city was never mentioned by name anywhere, Guthix was just vaguely discussing city that was underwater. Likewise, Lucien's daughter is never mentioned or talked about, just brought up in an insult. However Iestin was explicity menitoned by name in a book. There is informationa bout him even if there is not much. I think the case is very strong that the two Iestins are the same person which is why I believe they should be merged instead of deleted. As for the gravy boat article, I still don't think a deletion is in order, but rather a redirect to the thanksgiving event. If someone seraches that term, they shoudl be taken somewhere, or they'll just recreate the article. 22:13, September 8, 2010 (UTC)