User talk:C886553

/Archive

Blocks
All vandals deserve a warning, unless of course they where vandal bots. When I was younger I vandalized wikipedia a few times (twice, though I tried to undo it one of those times) because nobody told me it was wrong the first time around. From my experience, most vandals stop after they get a warning, and it's not our job to hand out blocks for every bad-faith mistake made by some of our misguided editors, but to those that appear to be incurable. 00:06, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah, calm down. I checked the two vandals, though I did not go as in depth as to see when each event took place to the second first time around (though I did before the blocks to ensure what you where telling me was true, seeing as how it's easy to confuse these kinds of things amongst all the chaos). I want this wiki to be a vandal-free database just as much as the next guy and am checking things best I can. 00:13, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will keep that in mind . 00:18, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

first
kinda 02:08, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * amg wojwoj found meh Ajraddatz Talk 02:09, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Orly? Coelacanth0794 02:10, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

:O
Yer stealin' mai jawb! 23:16, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * @@@ you'll need to make me an admin then :3 - joking, that isn't something which I want ATM. Ajraddatz Talk 23:17, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, I enjoy removing vandals from the CVU list and putting "Blocked" as the summary. Makes me feel like I actually did something useful.  23:18, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'll remember that ;) Ajraddatz Talk 23:19, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

One account policy.
Just an FYI, we actually do not technically have a one account policy. Although it has been enforced, which is something I do not like to see happen for a policy that does not exist. Just throwing that out there.--Degenret01 08:10, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually do know that, although thanks for pointing this out. Either way, am I right in assuming that you guys don't like sockpuppets? Heh, that's kinda rhetorical. Ajraddatz Talk 13:07, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I would find more than one account odd, but as long as they don't game the system with votes or some thing, hey, go for it. Especially if you upload pics Jagex might not like lol.--Degenret01 13:14, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * As an administrator on other wikis (Brickipedia is where I've had the most problems with sockpuppets, but even that is less than one case per month), I find that if we don't crack down on sockpuppets as soon as possible, then we either don't recognize the signs later, or forget about past evidence. As it is, I keep a file on my computer with suspected sockpuppet accounts/IPs, just in case (Although not everyone is that much of a loser). We might consider making a one user-one account policy, to prevent possible abuses of gaming the system. There would be exceptions, etc, and some allowances so long as the user acknowledges that one of their accounts is a legitimate duplicate. I can start a YG thread, if you like the idea at all. Ajraddatz Talk 13:30, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I must say though, (and sorry if I edit conflict you) I really don't see why anyone would create another account and use it, unless it was a bot account or some kind of public server account. Also, for the policy, it could really just be simple; if you create another account, put template on your userpage. That would cover all of the good faith people, and then we can crack down on those making another account for less enlightened purposes. Ajraddatz Talk 13:35, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I know this is a bit farfetched, but just in case we ever allow pics from the RSMV I think that a one account policy could be bad. Although very unlikely, it would be possible for some Pmods here to use checkuser to verify the IPs of people uploading those pics, and report them to Jagex. I know, soooooo unlikely. Yet possible all the same. Of course, anyone ever doing that will hopefully use one of them things to bounce their IPs so it wouldn't matter. I'm really tired so heading off before I ramble anymore. If you make thread I'll just watch it, I am sure it would pass fast.--Degenret01 13:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * If a Pmod does get checkuser, then it wouldn't matter how many accounts someone had. Checkuser has the ability to not only check the IP address of an account, but also what other accounts use that IP address. Erm, without doing another CU on every user on the wiki. I'll start a thread on it, and thanks for your input. Ajraddatz Talk 13:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

lalalala
skul is fur lusrs, i never aint had no skol and i anit not dun no dummy. 19:25, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * shol is teh coolies Ajraddatz Talk 19:26, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I dunno hao to spel ur name, so ajdrathrsrw 19:34, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

wat? i deltd it cuz it wuz gunn turn into a revert wur 20:20, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Not logged in
Of course I understand the revert. I realised I'd failed to log on after I did my edit and I got an email saying someone else had changed (i.e. my IP). 19:49, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Re:File:Teapotwithleaves
I misclicked and uploaded this image, so I deleted the revision. -- 00:08, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * lulz -- 00:09, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

CVU
Right.... Leave it to sysops, please. :O (I might have blocked that one, since it is pretty inappropriate, but it depends on my mood). 19:11, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * People shouldn't be blocked after one offense, especially a minor one. Simple as that. Ajraddatz Talk 19:12, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only time I block after only one offense is if the vandal inserted something extremely inappropriate. (Such as something of a sexual nature). That's borderline. 19:13, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even then, there is a 90% chance that they were just making a test edit, and will stop after a warning. In case you didn't notice, this one did just that. Also, sorry if I sound angry; I'm not. Just a bit serious ;) Ajraddatz Talk 19:15, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

The 8 ball hates me! (look in the IRC) 19:45, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, I'm not on IRC right now - at school D: Ajraddatz Talk 19:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * =O You should be concentrating on schoolwork then. And I see an Ajraddatz logged in. 19:52, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * nao, how am i supposed to pwn teh vandlz if i dont watch teh rc@@ Ajraddatz Talk 19:54, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Lmao. 01:39, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Damp tinderboxes are not a quest item. They the result if you take a tinderbox into the water-filled chamber in the Haunted Mine. They cannot be used to light any fires. The reason is so that the players are forced to do the mine cart puzzle to get a glowing fungus as a light source, since damp tinderboxes cannot light anything. They can't be dried either. Thus, it is a useless item. 01:42, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I added a category to a page and that's vandalism?

It's alright, but how do you make a text box?

The area bellow the title, no option to write down there for me. &lt;p /&gt;

Re:Signature
Please tell me how I am breaking RS:SIG because see, there is no rule that my signature cannot be randomised. I would really like to know. 11:12, May 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see RS:SIG - Point 2 in the Rules section. Users must not have more than one signature.  11:14, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not making that more clear. Ajraddatz Talk 12:58, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

How do you delete accounts? Helloiamyourmom 19:21, May 7, 2010 (UTC)


thats because its true
right?

anytime,

20:22, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

yes it may be a coincidence but it's interesting. I thinkl it should be there.

20:27, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

I knew it was in good faith. Why does rollbacking give him marks or something?

21:25, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

you has "eagle peak" eyes!
i didnt notice that....the dude edited it twice back to back, he is a sneaky deleter. 21:54, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. I'm not sure if those edits were bad faith, but I'll warn him anyways. Ajraddatz Talk 21:58, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thats one of the tools I use very rarely so wasn't familiar with how to make it happen. I didn't even think I could protect it if it didn't exist. Everyday I learn something is a win. Thanks.--Degenret01 04:56, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

>.>
My bad, Just trying to help 18:24, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Slang Dictionary
Ok sorry, won't happen again ^^ Baptiejames 10:26, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Forum:Multiple_account_policy
I have to say I am surprised as hell it didn't just blow through in a matter of a day or two. Still, not the first time I mis-guessed our community here. Don't worry too much about this though, as long as we have the policy about RS:GTS we can deal adequately with those we need to.--Degenret01 23:34, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya; I had intended to make the article more of a reiteration of RS:GTS, except more specific. I think I went a bit overboard on the bureaucratic side >.> Ajraddatz Talk 23:36, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Cake
[ What did I do?] O_o -- 02:17, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, nothing, I was bored and replaced my name with yours in the edit summary. Sorry, that was the most immature thing I've done all month, but as I say, I was bored. :P Ajraddatz Talk 02:18, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Better his name than mine. :O 02:19, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * -- 02:20, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * lul I'm such a nub. I should have used the username of someone who has never edited my userpage. >.> Ajraddatz Talk 02:22, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Don't be rolling back good faith edits. Undoing is fine but save rollbacks for vandalism. 23:00, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't, please like me to a instance where I did. Also, I'll bet that you don't even know why you undo (and not rollback) good faith edits. Ajraddatz Talk 23:01, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * So you can leave a summary, you don't have to be rude  23:03, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be rude, although I am perhaps a bit defensive. I have over 6 months of counter-vandalism experience across Wikia, have administrator access on 19 wikis (15 if you exclude the ones that I created), as well as rollback here, on Uncyclopedia and two Wikipedias. I am mainly, however, curious as to which good faith edit I rolled back. Also, correct reason. Ajraddatz Talk 23:06, May 17, 2010 (UTC)