User talk:Mason11987

Admins
Just to let you know, Admins can make admins as well, and you need to win a majority vote to be made an admin. Aido2002 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You sure? Other mediawiki's I've seen sysops can't create sysops, but if that's the case here then what unique power do bureaucrats have?  Also, how do I go through such a vote? Mason11987 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship
Your request for adminship has been ended early, because you have not been a member for at least a week, as is required. Aido2002 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, I saw that a little late but wasn't sure if it'd be better to remove it and re-apply later or wait for some more clarification. I will repost it when the week ends :) Mason11987 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My Country Page
Thanks for the change on my article about Soviet Narodnik, but i like it as the size it is, so if you could please keep it that way that would be apprciated. Thanks --Thecrisis5 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I thought it was one of those things where an image was accidentally too big, but now that I look at it, it actually does look cool like that, my mistake. Mason11987 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:infobox_country3
umm, I was a little confused about what you were asking. I'd rather you didnt edit the template i just made, but if i read your post right you are making a separate template and copying my categories? Thats fine...I copied some of them from infobox_country2.Solidusspriggan 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, ok i reread it and now it makes sense. Yeah I tried to standardize the fields a little bit. switched to just  and that sort of thing

Your suggestions
Well, what you said is what we are trying to do. I realize that not everything looks good, but it is a work in progress, and editing the Monobook.css and similar templates is hard (the codes and the way they are written is confusing). All I can say is that we are working on it. Also, this is not a forum, it is a wiki, and I moved your post to the village pump, where it will be noticed. Aido2002 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize it's not a forum, but there are extensions that wikia has installed that makes setting something like that up quite easy. Since I figured it'd be a good chance to grow the community a little bit, and it was completly my own time, I didn't see the harm in setting up the begginnings of it.  As I wrote in my message I'd be willing to add the information myself if I had the ability, but if you'd prefer I can simply make a page that can be copy-pasted onto those pages (although they aren't templates) there to serve the same function.  I'll help out with the working on it because that's what a wiki's for right? :) Mason11987 20:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, before unilatterally deleting pages without discussion, could you bring it up on a talk page? "redundant, such discussions belong on the village pump, and "Forum" isn't a namespace"  Forum is most certainly a namespace my friend, see here. Mason11987 20:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a namespace until you made it. Either way, we have the village pump for that reason. I deleted the pages becuase that belonged in the village pump, which is why I moved your comments there. Aido2002 20:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't create a namespace. It was unused before I made the pages but namespaces can only be added through the FTP. Mason11987 20:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, one page can't hold the general discussion of an entire wiki, and this would also allow a place for people to talk about cybernations withour respect to a particular article, which while may not advance the wiki directly, would definitly create a more secure community that would be talking here and can help out the wiki too. Mason11987 20:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever the situation, it doesn't matter. The point of the Village Pump is to be the discussin place, a forum is redundant. Aido2002 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Although you were using this as a reason to suggest I didn't know the wiki enough, and was therefore not fit to be an administrator, clearly our difference in opinion has nothing to do with my lack of knowledge of the wiki, it's simply that you think all discussion belongs in the village pump, and I think it would be useful to have other discussion places too. I'll drop the forum idea for now and if you would oppose giving admin powers to me because I'm still new here, then oppose it for the fact I'm new, and not that I don't understand how to use the wiki because I clearly do and I do understand how things work here, but had an idea for an improvement that didn't work out the best, not really legitimate reasons (in their own right) to oppose sysop status, right? Mason11987 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Message to Me
In response to your question I say, is it not up to me whether I choose to categorise my articles under my name or not? Most of the articles written by myself are linked to one another, thus I categorise them under my name. - Conrad Kruschev 10:32 (GMT) 1/12/06
 * Well, that's the thing, they aren't "your" articles, even if you wrote them completly and noone else has touched them at all. Because like I said on your talk page, there is a notice under the edit text box that says "Please note that all contributions to Cyber Nations Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors, and are released under the GNU Free Doc License. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here."  Categories exist in order to allow users to easily find information that is related (such as a nations category, or an alliance category).  Having them categorized under your name doesn't actually help anyone.  Articles should be categorized based on their subject, not on their "authors" pretty much.  Anyone can see who wrote an article by looking at the history, and you can see what you've edited by looking at your watchlist, or looking at your user contributions page. Mason11987 18:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me fill you in...
A while ago, before you started here, we decided to use "CyberNations:" as a namespace. (Edit conflict, here's the rest of my post) Just letting you know. (I was the only one who was for using "Cyber Nations Wiki' as a namespace)Aido2002 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's not a namespace, and it makes it seem like the content of the page has to do with the game, which, it doesn't. It has to do with the wiki, hence why Cyber Nations Wiki is a better choice for a projectspace. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So we're good with me moving the pages to their correct position? -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nations by Alliances
Just letting you know that I saw you were starting the gigantic project of categorizing, so I did my cats and my alliance, but now it has the NADC under "M" on the list. I know you can fix this. Sorry. Keep up the Good Work. J Andres 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll get there ;). Thanks for the heads up. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Random Insanity Alliance
Well, I would suggest not saying what nation you are on your talk page (not everyone notices the "history" tab). We need to work on making people know that they don't own their articles, I'm going to add this fact in big letters below the edit box. If things get bad on the Random Insanity page, I will semi/protect it, as needed. Aido2002 17:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a part of GPA and have not broken neutrality by enforcing policy on this wiki, it would be pretty stupid to pit an alliance against the GPA over a wiki article :). -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I don't want disputes here to leak over to CN. But, we have let this guy slide, he violated policy enough for a 72 hour block. I blocked him, let's see where this goes. Aido2002 00:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This "sounds" contradictory to "Wiki philosophy" but I am of the opinion that the creators of entries which document their own nation, here in this wiki, should be able to consider themselves the owner of that entry. I know I would be really peeved if anyone made substantial changes to ReligiousLibertarian.  Now when it comes to entries that are not documentation of a CN nation I agree that we need to apply the Wiki philosophy that "anyone can edit any page".  But, let's face it, this is not Wikipedia and the entries here are more for bragging and prestige and even fantasy or "role playing" than they are for documentation of fact.  Key Stroke
 * Roleplaying is correct. This wiki is a major form of roleplaying, but this is not for bragging. A nation page is allowed a lot more leeway as far as bias goes. October Massacre vs Socialists of Earth. One article displays the neutral view of the war, while in Socialists, the author explains the roleplayed autrocities from the war. Most people will not make major edits to your page unless it is vandalism in which case it will be reverted. So for most practical purposes, you do own your page. J Andres 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do agree with that, and people shouldn't make substantial changes obviously, but I think the changes you would be peeved about are the same changes we all would be peeved about, and that's vandalism. I would go as far as to say that people should be able to consider themselves the owner, but they aren't really the owner and have no right to vandalize in response to someone editing there page, aren't I right?  I see no problem as long as the article is written like an article about a subject.  I don't think NPOV matters at all in this case, it's not really that important here (and will not at all happen), so feel free to brag and have prestige and all that good stuff.  I don't think requiring article pages to talk about the subject of the article to be all that crazy.  It gives the impression that it's fine to just write whatever you want on any article page.  Leave article pages to talking about the subject (in whatever light the creator/owner feels best) and leave discussion pages to talking about how to fix those articles.  If people are that concerned with someone editing a page, then they can revert and explain themselves on the talk page, until something is worked out. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's move this to one page where we can privately disus this before putting it on the main Village Pump: Cyber Nations Wiki:Disc1

Sorry about this
One of RIA's members was a bit upset about the recent edits and thought it would be a good idea to do the same thing to you. I reverted your page back to the most recent one and told him not to do it again. I would also like to say, on behalf of RIA, that we will make sure all of our additions to our own wiki fit within the guidelines from this point forward. I also realize that you have every right to edit our article, but I would offer a humble request that you refrain from doing so unless there is something that needs to be fixed. If you cannot comply, I can't say we will be happy, but we will understand.


 * Hey, I wont speak for you (above poster, not this user), but even if the article is a little out of the guidelines, shouldn't you have something better to do then try and correct people who call themselves Random and Insane?

Well, nothing wrong with being random and insane, but mature should probably be thrown in there too. It's really simple. article pages are for talking about the subject, to be informative. Talk pages are for talking about how to improve the article. That's what a wiki is for. It is not a forum, there are places to talk about general stuff here, see the Village Pump, but this isn't a forum. I haven't edited anything else that has been controversial here besides the one article of your alliances. It shouldn't have been controversial. This wasn't even a question of if this is "appropriate" or not, this place isn't a forum, it's not for that. I don't see why enforcing the obvious fact that "discussion" tabs should be where discussion happens brought threats against me, and brought vandalism against me. It's really not strict rules at all. And to anyone, it's kind of interesting to critisize me for trying to improve a community resource by erasing obviously critical pieces of information such as "where is the fap train", I must have something better to do? lol right ;). -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The wiki is more informative with the random crap in it. It includes a feel that simple hard facts can't convey. By deleting the stuff that you don't like, you're making the page worse. Some things are just better with more than just facts. Would you delete a picture in an article about said picture? It isn't needed, but all the words that describe why a picture would be important enough to have an article won't convey the feeling that the actual picture itself does. Let the RIers deal with the RI board, we can take care of the facts and we know how to convey what we're about.
 * That is a terrible analogy, if the article is about a picture, then you show the picture and talk about the picture, if an article is about a group of people then you can show the people, or you talk about the people, but you don't let the people write whatever they want. To tell you the truth, I really don't think you know how to convey what you're about to anyone outside of your group, because what you are "about" looked like vandalism.  It wasn't descriptive, it didn't even say anything, it was just people talking back and forth.  Why don't you use this page to your advantage and explain what you're about (instead simply spamming the article with examples).  Why don't you take care of the facts and leave the discussion to the...discussion page, you know, cause it's for discussion.  -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 02:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion? There's rarely more than two sentances in a row about the same thing. That is a picture of the RIA. Random, random, random, random, something important, random, random, fad (in this case, cocks seems to be the fad).
 * See, but this doesn't actually say anything? Why even bother having a page here?  Like one of the messages said, "this is like a message board".  That's the thing, it isn't a message board, and it isn't meant to act like one.  Seriously, what good is it to spam your page with inside jokes that noone else gets?  If you want to make a page that only you will care to look at, you might as well put it somewhere else.  As it is, these pages are for everyone, and they are meant to inform, I can assure you that page didn't inform.  Articles are supposed to be informing about the subject, by spamming the page you aren't activly informing anyone, you're just "discussing" with eachother. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong about the purpose of the wiki article. Or, at least, you're only half right. It's there to inform, but it was created to recruit, with informing being part of recruiting. It says what we want it to say. If someone wants to know about our alliance to know if they want to join, they can check our wiki page. We want the people who see the page and go "I want to join those guys" join in. From your responces, I'm pretty sure you don't want the people who see what we have on our wiki to join your alliance.
 * It seems like you're implying that my opinions about your article are due to me trying to hurt your recruitment in some way. As it stands I don't care enough to touch that article again.  I'm making an alliance infobox that I was going to put on all the alliance pages to have share information but I'll just give you the link and you can do what you like.  Having this on your page will ensure you are categorized correctly (so you can be found) if categories change.  Template:Alliance infobox.  So while I still disagree with you I'm not going to be doing any editing on that page again.  All I will say is that in my opinion, the average person who visits wiki has seen wikipedia, and has inevitably seen vandalism on some of those pages, and then therefore thought wikipedia wasn't useful, or that page wasn't worth reading, your page looks like vandalism to most people who won't bother reading much of it, I'm not going to clean it up and I'm not going to comment on it to anyone else.  Aido2002 may have a different opinion, but that's for you to talk to him about.  Thanks for discussing it maturely, it's a good change from the RI related vandalism that got two IPs blocked by Aido and J Andres, while I disagree, I'll abstain from comment or action on that page from now on. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 07:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, you should have something better to do then argue with people like us. -Anyone and Everyone
 * And you should have something better to do then to make a shallow quasi-insult at me ;) -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have thought that page was vandalism for a while, I just didn't want to do anything to it. But I do not support a page full of "hey look at the butt secks train" "Our alliance is awesome" and the other assorted stuff you had on there. I personally think that if you want to be taken seriously, you should make a serious page, but that is just me. If you can't handle the fact that your page contained little to no factual information than you need to be a little less puerile. That page was a disgrace to the wiki, and if I was part of your alliance, I would be discraced as well. Mason says he will no longer revert your page, but I will. It doesn't belong here. J Andres 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we want people taking us completely seriously. -Anyone and Everyone
 * Then, I dunno, say "we don't want people taking us completly seriously" on the article. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 21:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't vandalise your page, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't vandalize ours.
 * My page was vandalized, explicitly and for obviously personal reasons, your page was not vandalized, it was cleaned up, if the edits weren't wanted a revert could have been made and discussion could happen regarding those. Instead vandalism happened against me.  It's really hard to try to suggest the page called Mason11987 wasn't vandalized and yet I vandalized the RI page. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 09:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * checks up on said vandalism* I guess someone did vandalise your page.  Two wrongs don't make a right, and doing that was wrong.  However, they don't really compare.  That was less than a line of text, as opposed to destroying most of our page, repetedly, then locking it, and it doesn't relly affect you or your alliance in any way.  Perhaps the person who did it was trying to get a point across?  While I'd prefer that nobody in our alliance did that and that we had the moral high ground, you can't really be suprised when the tactics that you use come back against you.  And yes our page was vandalized by you.  I've already explained why we want our page the way we had it.  I don't care if you can't understand it, just don't destroy parts of our page.
 * That vandalism happened after mine if you didn't know. I really don't think the amount of text change matters in "vandalism".  I think it is intent.  I intended to help the RI article to make it be clearer and more understandable.  The page of my name was created in order to insult me.  They are not at all comparable.  I attempted to clean up what appeared to be vandalism and was not what belongs on an article page, and I did it once, and then later an admin agreed with me and also reverted the page, and then locked it.  This has nothing to do with my alliance at all, and before you start telling me what I do, figure out what actually happened. I changed the page a few times, go take a look, and tell me when I destroyed it, repeatedly, show me the edits if you're going to claim that's true.  I attempted to remove what appeared to be vandalism (if you look at my edit summary you could see that), then when I received vandalism and what sounded like in-game threats I decided it would be easier to let someone else deal with it.  The tactics used were immature and insulting.  I had good faith in my edits, your group did not, at all.  It was not vandalized, I removed discussion from an article page, it wasn't even discussion.  If you want discussion, just use the discussion tab, it's REALLY simple.  Where do you suggest we draw the line on what people can put in their article?  Or do you think there shouldn't be a draw. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 03:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

New sig
-- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking
That's a lot of IPs. (This is why I think IPs shouldn't be able to edit...) My guess is a rolling IP, which you can get via AOL (AOL gives you a new IP each time you sign on), which this guy is using to sidestep blocks, and make it seem like a lot of people are following him. If This is a /b/ raid, then we must instruct them to leave alliance-inspired actions out of this Wiki, we don't want people vandalizing to make a point, as an attack. I'll get right on this, it is definitely in need of semiprotection (Only IPs vandalized, so a semi will keep them out) Aido2002 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think a better course of action might be to attempt a block even if it keeps out legitimate AOL anonys, as long as they get kept out. This is preferable to a full registration only policy in that legitimate anonys might still be able to post here (which is definitly a big group) but if they are AOL, then they'll just have to register.  Seems to make a lot of sense to me.  -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, blocked IPs can't register. But I didn't mean it was bad that AOL IPs can't get in, (if they knew what was good for them they wouldn't use AOL, anyway) it makes sense to block the IPs, as I did. Aido2002 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that blocked IPs could register, interesting. All sounds good though :).

Coordination of efforts relating to the Alliance
Don't you think that the Press Secretary should be directing and coordinating all our external communications regarding the Alliance? Key Stroke 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah...that's what I was doing I thought. I simply rearranged a list of GPA members.  I didn't change any information. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 21:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your signature
How did you get your little links into your signature? It that a part of the preferences? Aido2002 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, uncheck raw signature and put this into "Nickname" replacing links as needed.

-- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN )

-- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Aido2002 18:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias
Bias is never a good thing, it obscures the fact that it is supposed to convey. Since we cannot provide all points of view on any given topic, we cannot be biased. Aido2002 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since we cannot provide all points of view, as you said, bias will inevitably exist and will be very hard to try to wipe out of all the articles. It's a good effort I suppose but I think time may be better spent elsewhere for now. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently Unnamed Conflict
I left the talk page so they could discuss a possible name. However, as J Andres said, they should have a name before bringing it here. As for CCC Flag, I deleted that because it was just an image, and it already has an image page. Aido2002 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if they renamed the conflict they could have moved the article page and talk page in one move instead of what they'll have to do now. I think if we just put it into the CCC sub page area that it's kind of neat, sort of a developing news thing, but either way, doesn't really matter.  The CCC flag thing may have included other details on the flag that would have made it an article, see Flag_of_Ghostovia. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the CCC Flag page didn't have potential, but once it has a purpose, it can be remade. Few people know how to access the deletion log, so, while I understand that it would have helped to add the note, let's be honest, in reality, it would have not have added much. However, your subpage news thing gave me an idea: let's make a "CN News' kind of thing, so people don't make pages such as those that just say that developments are still going on. Comments? Aido2002 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)