Rock Patch 1.10 development thread

[blackheartstar]

How often do I have to repeat something until you understand it?
There. is. no. need. for. two. seperate. pages. on. the. same. topic. and. it. has. always. been. our. policy. to. merge. those. pages.
Two pages on RockPatch's versioning system are one two many. Not because I don't like the second one, but in general. Just as two pages on the Damage flag are enough, on RA2, or anything else.
Do you want to go to Warhead and split it? Make one Warhead (flag) and one Warhead (object)? 'cause that's exactly what you're advocating. One page for every point of view. One AIGenerals (TS), one AIGenerals (RA2), one AIGenerals (YR), one VKAIGenerals...

Apparently the one who is currently working on the patch feels there needs to be two pages since you want it your way. We are not talking about anything akin to warheads. We have a creator who wants his work listed one way and a admin who wants it shown another.

God. You _still_ didn't understand it, did you? There is no "his place". We generally rollback pages like status from other people's edits simply because no one but VK can say what the status is. That is not the case with versions. We all know what was released, and the future version names have been confirmed by, so they're public knowledge, too. Therefore, there is no need to make that page "VK only".

The only reason VK doesn't like my version of the official version list is it exposes how many revisions he had. And there is no logical reason why revisions should not be listed - not only did he himself list pd's "revisions" (while conveniently not listing his), but there's no use in this list at all if you can't look up a revision to see where in the release order it is.

C'mon. Gimme a logical reason why a page on RockPatch versions should not list that on 14.03.2007 a version of RPCE was released?
There is none. The only reason is that VK doesn't like the world to know that, while he decries pd's work as so crappy and buggy, pd had a maximum revision count of 2, while he's at 12 at the moment.

As you said "God. You _still_ didn't understand" its his work let him present it as he likes. Does pd dissagree with his revision being shown? If so remove them if not then they need to be shown and no one has a right to remove them. VK feels his revisions do not need to be shown on the versions page so nobody has a right to add them. As for degrading comments towards pd I feel VK was in the wrong but you seem to skip that part of anything I write on the subject

How often do I have to repeat something until you understand it?
There. is. no. need. for. two. seperate. pages. on. the. same. topic. and. it. has. always. been. our. policy. to. merge. those. pages.
Two pages on RockPatch's versioning system are one two many. Not because I don't like the second one, but in general. Just as two pages on the Damage flag are enough, on RA2, or anything else.
Do you want to go to Warhead and split it? Make one Warhead (flag) and one Warhead (object)? 'cause that's exactly what you're advocating. One page for every point of view. One AIGenerals (TS), one AIGenerals (RA2), one AIGenerals (YR), one VKAIGenerals....

Apparently the one who is currently working on the patch feels there needs to be two pages since you want it your way. We are not talking about anything akin to warheads. We have a creator who wants his work listed one way and a admin who wants it shown another.

"Reorganizing into my view"? How the hell does one do that?
Like, ordering 1 2 3 into 3 2 1 and saying "NOOO! 3 clearly comes before 1!!"?
Let's look at the posted information:

• VK posted: A list of RockPatch versions from 1.00 to Hells Edition, a note that RPCE is not 1.09, pd's "revisions", a whole lot of slander against pd.
  
• I posted: A list of RockPatch versions from 1.00 to Hells Edition, a note that RPCE is not 1.09 (according to VK), pd's "revisions", VK's revisions, a small history of the versioning system(s), a current → traditional mapping.
  

Hmm, scanning...scanning. Oh, I see.
...the only thing missing from VK's page is the slander against pd, that must be what you're talking about.

I thought it was okay to remove that? Hypocrite.

Only thing missing yes you prove once again how good you are at twisting your way through things. You didnt just remove the slander you "added". Do you not get it. Stop twisting this around. I agreed with the removal of the slander but you didnt stop there and add, or do you not read?

You mean other than the example right above?
You keep on pretending you were having a neutral view, while constantly ignoring my posts and re-posting already deconstructed parts of other people's posts.

Had you listened to anything I said, you'd have seen a hundred times over that I did nothing we haven't been doing for years. Removing vandalism, banning vandals, merging pages, expanding pages.
Encouraging discussion, discouraging useless stuff.

Instead you keep on pretending the past two years of active administration didn't happen, this is the first time I do all this, and therefore, I must be doing it to suppress VK.

Either come out as a VK-supporter and act like it, or give all opinions the same weight in your posts. But quit acting like I'm out to hunt VK just because I do the same stuff I did a dozen times last year..

The example above is flawed becouse you didnt "just" remove the slander. I do have a neutral view. You dont seem to grasp that. I dissagree with VK just as much if not more than you in all of this or do you not pay attention to details that dont support your world view? Those are your quotes and are very much apart of this conversation.

Do I have to copy/paste it, like the other stuff, or are you capable of scrolling up and reading?

What where you post a crude change log where you take out the slander (good) twisting it onto me were my point was the changes after that? Did you think I wouldnt read and repley to this? You just completely lied or would you rather missinformed? Go read your own log dont bother scrolling up here it is:

• VK posted: A list of RockPatch versions from 1.00 to Hells Edition, a note that RPCE is not 1.09, pd's "revisions", a whole lot of slander against pd.
  
• I posted: A list of RockPatch versions from 1.00 to Hells Edition, a note that RPCE is not 1.09 (according to VK), pd's "revisions", VK's revisions, a small history of the versioning system(s), a current → traditional mapping.
  

Notice how after the slander is removed theres a bit more you try to sneak in there.

Had you listened to anything I said, you'd have seen a hundred times over that I did nothing we haven't been doing for years. Removing vandalism, banning vandals, merging pages, expanding pages.
Encouraging discussion, discouraging useless stuff.

Instead you keep on pretending the past two years of active administration didn't happen, this is the first time I do all this, and therefore, I must be doing it to suppress VK.

When have I said anything about his ban being unapropraite? Just the complete cover of his version page and the fact you do not allow a creator control over there own release history page bothers me.

Yeah...constantly! Like, where is the count now? Zero...one! What? ONE already?!?! OMFG I reworked his page ONCE!! I didn't know MediaWiki could even handle this many edits!

Do your lies know no bounds?

When he first posted over yours you could/should have split it during your rollback. Either time thats twice. Yes I know VK did it also and was banned for it. Then he made his own page but your version was so much better you just merged it into yours and redirected his to yours. Thats three times atleast. Those are facts. Now is when you say "I see no reason for two version pages" well one page is your view the other is the (not origenal) creators view. The fact you dont want two pages dosent discount the fact you surpressed him three times. You may notice that I dont say your roll back was wrong as it was right I just think you should have place his info on a page simular to the one he went on to make. Thats so you cant twist this into me against you as you like to do so much.

Yeah, we've seen that above.

What in your missdirections?

Right. Fuck whether it's logical or not! If VK doesn't want everybody to see that he needs six times the revisions to create something the people regard as stable, where pd only needed two revisions, let him propagate that view already!

Oh FUCK the sarcasm. I'm sick of it. The only thing I'm curious about is whether you're actively trying to manipulate people onto VK's site, or if he just turned you without yourself noticing?

Do you even see what you're doing here? On one hand, you say "it's okay to remove the slander". On the other hand, you attack me for fixing the biased display of versions. And you ask why I'm calling you a hypocrite?!

As I said above should pd not want his revisions shown then you should/would remove them. If not then they would have to be there thats his right as a creator. No one cares how many times "either" of them had bugs to fixxed as long as the bugs are fixxed. Do you not get that?

Let's look at the posted information:

VK posted: A list of RockPatch versions from 1.00 to Hells Edition, a note that RPCE is not 1.09, pd's "revisions", a whole lot of slander against pd.
I posted: A list of RockPatch versions from 1.00 to Hells Edition, a note that RPCE is not 1.09 (according to VK), pd's "revisions", VK's revisions, a small history of the versioning system(s), a current → traditional mapping.

Hmm, scanning...scanning. Oh, I see.
...the only thing missing from VK's page is the slander against pd, that must be what you're talking about.

I thought it was okay to remove that? Hypocrite.

Look again at what I said above yet again.

How often do I have to repeat something until you understand it?
There. is. no. need. for. two. seperate. pages. on. the. same. topic. and. it. has. always. been. our. policy. to. merge. those. pages.
Two pages on RockPatch's versioning system are one two many. Not because I don't like the second one, but in general. Just as two pages on the Damage flag are enough, on RA2, or anything else.
Do you want to go to Warhead and split it? Make one Warhead (flag) and one Warhead (object)? 'cause that's exactly what you're advocating. One page for every point of view. One AIGenerals (TS), one AIGenerals (RA2), one AIGenerals (YR), one VKAIGenerals...

Apparently the one who is currently working on the patch feels there needs to be two pages since you want it your way. We are not talking about anything akin to warheads. We have a creator who wants his work listed one way and a admin who wants it shown another.

Wait, you call me a hypocrite, only to bring up the slander in the same line?
Bold.
Stupid, but bold.)

once again you bring up an instance thats flawed as in the crude log you posted above. The slander is not the edits to which I reffer despite you constantly claiming otherwise in your last post. The thing is you knew better.

Entry Word: impostor
Function: noun
Text: or imposter
one who makes false claims of identity or expertise [...]

You pretend to be the neutral observer, yet exclusively spread VK's propaganda. If that's not a case of claiming false identity or expertise, I don't know what it is.

btw, notice how "impostor" is the main entry, while "imposter" is the alternative one. dictionary.com and wiktionary list the same hierarchy. Three dictionaries vs. your opinion. So much for correcting me..

I see no way that Im a impostor either. I dont exclusively spread VK's propaganda but ofcoures you would over look that

And, as usual, ending with the "I'm so neutral, I just want everything to work out." hypocrite foundation.
Usually, I'd guess that doesn't work anymore now, but given the blind eye the muppets have turned to my posts before, I assume they'll continue to buy it. Congrats on turning them into good little sheeple. Lord knows what would happen if they actually realized how you two are twisting reality here.

Sorry you cant understand the concept of seeing both views. I doult our argument on this has changed anybodies point of view on the subject one way or the other.

Actually, thinking about it, I think I know where you learned...keeping people in line, dictating the enemy despite all obvious evidence, re-writing the past, making people say stuff against there own opinions...

No this describes you perfectly.

But as blade said VK should explain why your page isnt good enough, and I never thought to ask that.

Im sorry Ive argued this so adamently and will drop out of this now. I apollogise if Ive offended you.