User talk:Lacky/Archive/August 2009

Howdy!

Sup bro? --LaCkY 02:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. -- Lacky 05:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

wtf? Mini Me 10:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

wtf?? ----LaCkY 10:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I gots me an impostor. =P Hooray! Someone loves me! -- Lacky 11:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hai :3 Magic Talk 04:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh hai thar. -- Lacky 08:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

accounts

Which other accounts do you have/are you using? This Chris Malone thing is getting boring, and since we usually do something about people disrupting through impersonation (and of course disruption in general), I'd like to see this crap cleared up. Thanks. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I own the following accounts:

• User:Chris_Malone
• User:Chris_malone
• User:Chris_M
• User:Chris_m
• User:Christopher_Malone
• User:Christopher_malone
• User:Christopher_M
• User:Christopher_m

I basically own all the variations linking to my User:Chris_Malone userspace. I cannot remember for 100% but I might also own the ones without an underscore (_) in them. -- Lacky 05:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: As for the User:Lacky thing, this is the only account variation I own, I do not own any other accounts similar to User:Lacky. -- Lacky 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Which account do you intend on using? I've seen contribs from both User:Lacky and Chris Malone, so I'm unsure whether you're using them concurrently or just trying to choose between the two (or something different entirely). -- Brains12 \ talk 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I use both User:Lacky and User:Chris Malone. -- Lacky 09:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? -Auron 09:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not? And also because I can. -- Chris Malone 09:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

While we don't have a policy forbidding the use of sockpuppets, there really is no valid reason to post on more than one account. Those people who do generally use sock puppets do so for anonymity, which in this case is clearly not the purpose. So just what do you get out of posting with multiple accounts? -- Wyn talk 10:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I would have had anonymity if people hadn't tried to impersonate me. Also, I don't tend to post on my other account, however I will if the occasion arises in which I need too. Also, I have my own personal reasons as for why I created the account(s). -- Lacky 11:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"because I can" isn't a personal reason unless you're 10. -Auron 11:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ummm.... anonymity can not be achieved by creating 10 accounts with basically the same name, and redirecting them all to a single page. Also, having a very prominent link from that page to your Lacky page is also not really keeping who you are a secret. Also, since Chris Malone is the name of your primary character, I doubt it would be fooling anyone who it is. Being anonymous means not broadcasting to the entire wiki you are this person....... -- Wyn talk 11:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is always an option, and yes, I'm registered. 68.110.24.123 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

@Auron: That wasn't the personal reason I was referring too.

@Wyn: I doubt in a years time, people are going to scour through the user creation log to find me. Also, people hardly look at my page(s) anyway, so I'm not really broadcasting.

@IP: Lolwut? -- Chris Malone 05:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be anonymous, or have a change of ID without people being able to track down who you are, just run as an IP. I ran as a whole handful of IPs before I finally caved and registered. Same person, different IP. 137.48.131.9 15:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Inactive guilds

Do you actually check for inactivity when you tag the guilds? For example Guild:Devious Minds United, which you just tagged, is still active in their forums, so they are most probably still active in Guild Wars as well. Please make sure that you check both conditions in the policy, not just #1. Thanks. poke | talk 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the guild pages that I see don't even have links to them, or a guild leader listed, if anything at all. -- Lacky 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Still that doesn't explain why you didn't check the guild above for example.. poke | talk 13:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Force of habit I guess. -- Lacky 22:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Two of the guilds you tagged tonight have active forums. Please check these things rather than just going down the list with GWWT. It IS part of the guild page policy that they should be checked and not tagged if they have an active forum/website. You are just creating more work for everyone having to double check what you do. -- Wyn talk 09:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Then how do you propose I take the guild off the inactive list if they are indeed still active? -- Lacky 09:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Add a space, or remove a commented line. There is always a way to make a minor edit without changing the content. -- Wyn talk 09:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

By commented line you mean something like <noinclude>Is this a commented line? <!-- Maybe this is? --></noinclude> -- Lacky 09:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. You could add a comment like <!-- Not Inactive --> and then in 3 months when it's back on the list, you can just remove that line :D -- Wyn talk 09:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty terrible way to do things - definitely more of a ghetto rig than how it should be done. Can poke or someone code something so we can take guilds off the inactive list without spamming the guild page's history with pointless, meaningless edits and useless lines like "not inactive?" I understand you're doing it to get around the currently limited inactivity-detection system, but it's really not good enough to keep doing forever. We need some way to mark guilds as active without pointless edits. -Auron 10:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It's how we've always done it, just leave it be Auron.-- Wyn talk 10:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright Wyn, will do. Thanks for that.

@Auron: That would be pretty sweet, don't know how plausible it is though. Give Poke a cookie and some time, he could do it. =P -- Lacky 10:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

AmiDoinItRite

? -- Lacky 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it was okay for a temporary fix. It is stupid for a permanent solution. Requiring unnecessary edits is a hint that something isn't as it should be. -Auron 11:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How is keeping a guild out of being inactive status unnecessary? -- Lacky 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He didn't say that... he's saying that requiring a pointless edit every <x> period of time to keep a guild from being "inactive" is poorly set up. – Emmett 05:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

--Burning Freebies 09:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday. - J.P.Talk 09:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Guys! -- Lacky 09:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday!--Unendingfear 02:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Lacky 10:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)