Difference between revisions of "User talk:Nx"
(→Just a question about a log: changing me comments he must be) |
Nutty Roux (talk | contribs) (→Request: new section) |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
::Careful with the questions LArron, you may find yourself going to deep and end up black-bagged... [[image:Dictator.gif]] {{:User:Armondikov/sig}} 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC) | ::Careful with the questions LArron, you may find yourself going to deep and end up black-bagged... [[image:Dictator.gif]] {{:User:Armondikov/sig}} 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Ahhh that explains it! Clever illusions, Master! Now I hazn't the power. Now I haz! Can we be made to see different things than the others? Now that would be a trick! [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] ([[User talk:Lumenos|talk]]) 00:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC) | ::Ahhh that explains it! Clever illusions, Master! Now I hazn't the power. Now I haz! Can we be made to see different things than the others? Now that would be a trick! [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] ([[User talk:Lumenos|talk]]) 00:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Request == | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sir, I'm thinking that most people miss it when they're blocked here because blocks are of such a short length. Would it be possible to add an option to Preferences to permit a user to opt in to receiving an email when s/he has been blocked indicating the blocker, reason, etc.? It would aid in the fun as well as give users a headsup they've been legitimately blocked, as rarely as that happens, before they find out the hard way. Do you think like I do? <big>[[User:Nutty Roux|'''ÑR''']]</big><sub>/Señor Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:Nutty Roux|/Hablar]]</sup> 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:36, 21 June 2010
Can you talk some sense to Foster?
I think you raised the issue of vandal binning IPs previously, and how it only affects innocents and leaves me entirely unscathed. Even a moments reflection and people would understand this. Unfortunately, he is so idiotic now that he won't even read such a kind of complaint. I would appreciate it. 74.63.112.137 (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I did. Nice concern trolling. -- Nx / talk 23:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think its important, regardless of concern trolling or not. Obviously innocent people are affected and the guilty parties (ME) are not. Under any system of comprehension, that is illogical. I really hope RW doesn't adopt the attitude 'well since MC is suggesting it we must do the opposite'. That surely is a sign that I've won! 86.40.107.167 (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't give a shit. -- Nx / talk 23:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- You don't care that millions of people may potentially be prohibited from activity in this site? How big of you. 86.40.107.167 (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't give a shit. -- Nx / talk 23:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think its important, regardless of concern trolling or not. Obviously innocent people are affected and the guilty parties (ME) are not. Under any system of comprehension, that is illogical. I really hope RW doesn't adopt the attitude 'well since MC is suggesting it we must do the opposite'. That surely is a sign that I've won! 86.40.107.167 (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Its clearly much more simple not to bin the IPs in the first place. Just ban instead. Infinitely more logical. That is all. 86.40.107.167 (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't care. I'm not even a sysop. -- Nx / talk 23:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're very petty, for a fascist. 86.40.107.167 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't care. I'm not even a sysop. -- Nx / talk 23:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Irrational numbers and stuff
Is that how Nx should stay or was that a case of inverse admin abuse? i.e. a round a roundabout way of saying double you tea eff? ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 01:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nx refers to RW in the second person, which really confuses me at times. ħuman 01:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a question about a log
Human made a nice pic. I tried to take a closer look at the entries, a stumbled upon some inconsistencies in the user-rights log. For instance, here's an excerpt of log:
- 13:18, 17 December 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Nx from Bureaucrats and Sysops to Irrational numbers (this is more appropriate)
- 02:50, 14 December 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Nx from Bureaucrats and Sysops to (none)
- 01:33, 11 December 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Nx from Bureaucrats, Irrational numbers and Sysops to (none)
So, you decratted yourself three times in a row, without being cratted again in the mean time. How is this possible?
Just intrigued, Yours larronsicut fur in nocte 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- There are more things with root than are dreamt of in your philosophy. tmtoulouse 19:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- He edited the database, or used a maintenance script. Harmonic drug Hoover! 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Careful with the questions LArron, you may find yourself going to deep and end up black-bagged... moral 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ahhh that explains it! Clever illusions, Master! Now I hazn't the power. Now I haz! Can we be made to see different things than the others? Now that would be a trick! Lumenos (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Request
Sir, I'm thinking that most people miss it when they're blocked here because blocks are of such a short length. Would it be possible to add an option to Preferences to permit a user to opt in to receiving an email when s/he has been blocked indicating the blocker, reason, etc.? It would aid in the fun as well as give users a headsup they've been legitimately blocked, as rarely as that happens, before they find out the hard way. Do you think like I do? ÑR/Señor Admin/Hablar 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)