Rock Patch 1.10 development thread

[blackheartstar]

Why do you care so mutch about that stupid page? There is no one reading them, they just download the lastest version and read tutorials.
Let it be.
I laugh at you two
Writing milions of sentence to eachother that dosent leading anywhere!

lol most members just download, look at tutorials and most people with a brain can interpret them.

this thread is just pure lol, seriously just leave VK alone, so he focus on patch instead of naming conventions, or grammar, misinterpretations.

Im with these two.

Technikly you are forceing VK in to presenting his information in your way. You will not "allow" him to present it his way with out you rewording and reorganizing it. That is a fact. You may think its better and it does look better but it is not how he wants his offical page to look or be worded. Forceing somebody is just as bad as threatening them into something. Ofcourse if he puts it up with slander you can just go edit out said slander without mergeing or changeing anything else. Just as you mentioned to him.

So my post comes out abit more ballanced:

Surely that's a bit over the top, there are thousands of proxy servers out there and there is always TOR and services like it that will get round IP bans like that and it could potentially affect legitimate users.

VK, let it go, its pointless trying to change the page on ModEnc against the admin's wishes. I doubt that much attention will be given to the page outside of this conflict of direction (i.e. stupid argument) anyway.

VK if hes not going to allow you to change it or express you view on your own page as blade said drop it and continue. As has been said above most modders just get the newest revision and go with it. Mapping the history is only catering to a select few new modders that may come through. Rens page may not be as you wish but it does get the point across none the less.

Think about this if you start the patch back up eventualy he'll have to lift your ban then you can potintualy creat a your offical page with-out his interfearence. Look at it this way if he doesnt lift the ban after you start back up you dont have to worry about anyone asking about why you dont update modec fast enough anymore thus your offline help will become a welcome addition.

[Bobingabout]

[DCoder]

Neither is DCoder. Stop the pics.

[Nighthawk]

You may think its better and it does look better but it is not how he wants his offical page to look or be worded.

But the thing is that it's not his page, he didn't create it, it's as much his page as Main_Page is his, that's the whole concept of wiki.

Edit: I'm referring to RockPatch:Versions

[Renegade]

Im with these two.

Technikly you are forceing VK in to presenting his information in your way. You will not "allow" him to present it his way with out you rewording and reorganizing it. That is a fact. [...]

No it's not. I re-worded one "official" page he created - which was full of slander, badly designed, and not in line with ModEnc:Styleguide. His version, for example, displayed b and c versions as equal to the other releases, but left out his revisions. Clearly a design intended to mislead people about the amount of bugfixing going on.

Had he added his version to RockPatch:Versions in the beginning, had he left out his slander, and had his list been complete, I wouldn't even have touched it. I've got better things to do.

But pretending I won't let anything stand that he wrote is just plain slander on your own part. Check RockPatch:Status, for example - of the fifty latest revisions, there is one by me. You know what that one does? Revert vandalism back to VK's version.

You should really get in your head that, independent from whether or not I like VK's page, I'm also generally administrating ModEnc - and part of that is protecting it from vandals and improving existing pages. What I did was ban a vandal, merge two similar pages, remove slander, and improve the design of a page.
Had I done that to any other page, you couldn't care less. But noooo, it was the versions page, so it must be a hostile attempt to suppress VK.

God. And they laugh about 9/11 conspiracy theories...

You may think its better and it does look better but it is not how he wants his offical page to look or be worded.

Oh, yeah, right...when I'm "misleading" people by giving them real version numbers as guidelines, that's bad.
But when he's misleading people by listing only pd's bugfix-versions and badmouthing only his versions, that's totally fine and not to worry about.

God you're such a hypocrite, it's disgusting.

Forceing somebody is just as bad as threatening them into something.

Forcing him to do what? Make his page not look like crap? Not slandering pd? Not leaving out information?

Oh, forgive me for trying to have ModEnc display accurate information.

(And before you jump, VK, you still fail to give a logical reason why the entire community should believe AIGenerals work if there actually is nothing that could work.)

Ofcourse if he puts it up with slander you can just go edit out said slander without mergeing or changeing anything else. Just as you mentioned to him.

Why would I not merge the pages? The current page shows, matter-of-factly, VK's versioning, and below it, clearly marked at not official, a logical mapping of that versioning to traditional numbers.
What would be the advantage of having this information separate?
What would be the advantage of leaving out VK's revisions?
What would be the advantage of taking out all the release dates, hierarchy and revision notes, and returning to a plain list format?

You can try and play the supporter all you want - there is no logical reason, no advantage of his design over mine or a two-page solution.
He's just crying because my page is better designed as his, and I dared to show that.

VK if hes not going to allow you to change it or express you view on your own page as blade said drop it and continue. [...]

Yeah right...ignore everything I replied and keep pretending I'm suppressing him. At least you're consistent.

An impostor, yes, but a consistent one.

[blackheartstar]

But pretending I won't let anything stand that he wrote is just plain slander on your own part. Check RockPatch:Status, for example - of the fifty latest revisions, there is one by me. You know what that one does? Revert vandalism back to VK's version.

Then why edit the entire page or make it a redirect rather than just the slanderous parts? After all that was your advice to him when your origenal page was up. Im not pretending its a fact. If its not why wont you let him make his as he wants?  Im not questioning the removal of his off comments about pd or yourself as they shouldnt have been there, but thats where the editing should have stopped.

You should really get in your head that, independent from whether or not I like VK's page, I'm also generally administrating ModEnc - and part of that is protecting it from vandals and improving existing pages. What I did was ban a vandal, merge two similar pages, remove slander, and improve the design of a page.
Had I done that to any other page, you couldn't care less. But noooo, it was the versions page, so it must be a hostile attempt to suppress VK.

God. And they laugh about 9/11 conspiracy theories...

I understand very well that you run the this site. Im just questioning your methods of handling a creator who has a different point of view than your own. Where you can consider the editing/deleting of the aigenerals section and iscanine section vandalizing becouse he wont properly explain or prove these things. The editing of the versions page really is his place to edit. If he changed something on pds release order I could see that as vandaless but on what he has put out for the patch it is a product he is currently working on not yours not mine and should be able list his work as he pleases.

Oh, yeah, right...when I'm "misleading" people by giving them real version numbers as guidelines, that's bad.
But when he's misleading people by listing only pd's bugfix-versions and badmouthing only his versions, that's totally fine and not to worry about.

God you're such a hypocrite, it's disgusting.

No your missleading through comments like this. I never said it was bad its just not how he wants his work on this project protraied or listed. You do dictate over what he displays hence his old page became a redirect to you merged page, and you said by posting anything else he was asking for another merge or did you forget you said this:

All you're setting up is another merge.

You may not like it but he wants his work presented in away you dont seem to like or understand so you dont let it happen. You are the hypocrite here. Saying you dont stop him then turning around and reorganizing what he put up into your view rather than his. Explain where I was being a hypocrite here please?

If your going to try this as its the last thing said in that paragraph

But when he's misleading people by listing only pd's bugfix-versions and badmouthing only his versions, that's totally fine and not to worry about.

God you're such a hypocrite, it's disgusting.

Re read the post your quoting me from youll find I said this

Ofcourse if he puts it up with slander you can just go edit out said slander without mergeing or changeing anything else.

I have never condoned the pointless degredations thrown around by VK, and still do not. Did you over look that or just ignore it?

Forcing him to do what? Make his page not look like crap? Not slandering pd? Not leaving out information?

Oh, forgive me for trying to have ModEnc display accurate information.?

Forceing him to go with your version of the versions page. You do not accept anything else.

Why would I not merge the pages? The current page shows, matter-of-factly, VK's versioning, and below it, clearly marked at not official, a logical mapping of that versioning to traditional numbers.
What would be the advantage of having this information separate?
What would be the advantage of leaving out VK's revisions?
What would be the advantage of taking out all the release dates, hierarchy and revision notes, and returning to a plain list format.

You can try and play the supporter all you want - there is no logical reason, no advantage of his design over mine or a two-page solution.
He's just crying because my page is better designed as his, and I dared to show that.?

No he crys becouse you consistantly rework his page rather than let it be. On things like the slander and down play of pd I agree change it as it has no place there. You dont stop there though you go the next step and start editing his view of the release info. He obiously doesnt want the fix revisions listed you insist that they be creating two completely different pages. It dosent matter if its logical or not.

Yeah right...ignore everything I replied and keep pretending I'm suppressing him. At least you're consistent.

You are every single time you reword rework or threaten to merge his page you are infact suppressing him. Such as you are the hypocrit here. (and when I say reword Im not reffering to the senceless bad comments he makes)

An impostor, yes, but a consistent one.

I dont see how I am a "imposter".

I want VK to stop being childish about this and ignore your opinion thus continue work on the patch. Id also like to see him learn better way to discribe things so everything he has to say doesnt come out as a derogatory attack . I want you to stop being so insistant that your view is the onlyone that works and to see that his view may just be valid even if hes the only one thats sees it and its not logical. Those are the goals of my comments.

[Renegade]

Then why edit the entire page or make it a redirect rather than just the slanderous parts? After all that was your advice to him when your origenal page was up. Im not pretending its a fact. If its not why wont you let him make his as he wants? Im not questioning the removal of his off comments about pd or yourself as they shouldnt have been there, but thats where the editing should have stopped.

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...

I understand very well that you run the this site. Im just questioning your methods of handling a creator who has a different point of view than your own. Where you can consider the editing/deleting of the aigenerals section and iscanine section vandalizing becouse he wont properly explain or prove these things. The editing of the versions page really is his place to edit. If he changed something on pds release order I could see that as vandaless but on what he has put out for the patch it is a product he is currently working on not yours not mine and should be able list his work as he pleases.

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.

No your missleading through comments like this. I never said it was bad its just not how he wants his work on this project protraied or listed. You do dictate over what he displays hence his old page became a redirect to you merged page, and you said by posting anything else he was asking for another merge or did you forget you said this:

All you're setting up is another merge.

You may not like it but he wants his work presented in away you dont seem to like or understand so you dont let it happen. ...

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...

...You are the hypocrite here. Saying you dont stop him then turning around and reorganizing what he put up into your view rather than his. ...

"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.

... Explain where I was being a hypocrite here please?

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.

If your going to try this as its the last thing said in that paragraph

But when he's misleading people by listing only pd's bugfix-versions and badmouthing only his versions, that's totally fine and not to worry about.

God you're such a hypocrite, it's disgusting.

Re read the post your quoting me from youll find I said this

Ofcourse if he puts it up with slander you can just go edit out said slander without mergeing or changeing anything else.

I have never condoned the pointless degredations thrown around by VK, and still do not. Did you over look that or just ignore it?

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

Forceing him to go with your version of the versions page. You do not accept anything else.

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.

Why would I not merge the pages? The current page shows, matter-of-factly, VK's versioning, and below it, clearly marked at not official, a logical mapping of that versioning to traditional numbers.
What would be the advantage of having this information separate?
What would be the advantage of leaving out VK's revisions?
What would be the advantage of taking out all the release dates, hierarchy and revision notes, and returning to a plain list format.

You can try and play the supporter all you want - there is no logical reason, no advantage of his design over mine or a two-page solution.
He's just crying because my page is better designed as his, and I dared to show that.?

No he crys becouse you consistantly rework his page rather than let it be. ...

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?

... On things like the slander and down play of pd I agree change it as it has no place there. ...

Yeah, we've seen that above.

... You dont stop there though you go the next step and start editing his view of the release info. He obiously doesnt want the fix revisions listed you insist that they be creating two completely different pages. It dosent matter if its logical or not.

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?

You are every single time you reword rework ...

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.

... or threaten to merge his page you are infact suppressing him. ...

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...

...Such as you are the hypocrit here. (and when I say reword Im not reffering to the senceless bad comments he makes)

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

I dont see how I am a "imposter".

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 want VK to stop being childish about this and ignore your opinion thus continue work on the patch. Id also like to see him learn better way to discribe things so everything he has to say doesnt come out as a derogatory attack . I want you to stop being so insistant that your view is the onlyone that works and to see that his view may just be valid even if hes the only one thats sees it and its not logical. Those are the goals of my comments.

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.

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...

1984. You're The Party, VK is Big Brother.
Does that make me Emmanuel Goldstein?

[blackheartstar]

Do your lies know no bounds?

Im afraid I havent lied here but you have. It is a fact that on top of editing out the slander you add your view of the version history over VKs. You have multibale times edited VKs at first VK was in the wrong by deleting your page so you in turn deleted his in your "rollback" rather than splitting (or was that not possible?) VK made his own so you merged it into your view. That is fact no matter how you want to throw it in anybodies face. It is also a fact that you said if he put up another you would merge again. By that you said anything he puts up you "will" edit to your liking. So in the end you have changed his multible times rather you want to admit it or not. It seems you just have a problem comprehending a view origenating from someone other than yourself.

Your very good at twisting words around as you know very well what I ment when I said edit the slander out of the page with out adding your opinion to his versioning. I dont know how much simpler I can word it for you.

You are the one attempting to twist reallity here. You twist anything thrown your way. You called me a hypocrit on the subject of his slander when I myself in the same post was against his slander. Do you not read? I said I was against slander. You in turn claim Im for it, even after I pointed out and then repeatedly said I was against it? That is were you twist it.

It appears we have came to the point where we just repeat ourselves over and over word for word.

[~/-\G@M~]

ohh Ren please. It is just f*cking version names!
Why dont you just use VK´s way?
We all know that your way is better but still, use VKs damn way!!
You know why? BECUSE WE WANT THE FUCKING PATCH TO CONTINUE!

[Renegade]

Im afraid I havent lied here but you have. It is a fact that on top of editing out the slander you add your view of the version history over VKs. ...

Where? Quit claiming, prove it!
Did the revisions not exist?
Do the notes not express exactly what VK said, only with less slander?
Did VK not say that all revisions are officially incompatible with previous versions?

The truth is not "my view" of the version history. The truth is only what VK apparently doesn't like to be broadcasted.

... You have multibale times edited VKs at first VK was in the wrong by deleting your page so you in turn deleted his in your "rollback" rather than splitting (or was that not possible?) ...

Where? Quit claiming, prove it!
I did never edit VK's version.
I rolled back vandalism, and I merged both pages.
The only change I ever made on VKVersions is the turning into a redirect. And since the same information is available at Versions now (and more), nothing was lost there - except for the slander.
The only changes I made to versions of Versions created by VK were rollbacks - so I never edited his versions there either.

And since I'm getting kind of tired of this discussion, I'll cut myself some fun and show everybody right away how much you apparently not know about MediaWiki administration - 'cause would you actually know what "rollback" ment, you wouldn't have asked whether splitting wasn't possible:

[...] Clicking on the link reverts to the previous edit not authored by the last editor, with an automatic edit summary of "Reverted edits by X (talk) to last version by Y," [...]

...not to mention that splitting would have created a duplicate page, which, as I explained numerous times before (you know, these long things with text up there..."replies"), are not what we want, and not needed either.

But hey, who's to say you didn't know that? Wouldn't be the first time you dismiss the truth and try to imply malicious intentions instead...

... VK made his own so you merged ...

And as I've told you in almost every post by now, that is entirely in line with our behavior from the past two years, as well as the behavior or about any other wiki operating out there.

... it into your view. ...

Want me to copy the text, or are you capable of scrolling?

... That is fact no matter how you want to throw it in anybodies face. ...

Little hint for the future: If you want to lie into the face of an entire community...make sure there are no version histories proving your opponent's version of the story.

... It is also a fact that you said if he put up another you would merge again. ...

Indeed, because, *scrolls up to find text*
...[it] [...] would [...] create[...] a duplicate page, which, as I explained numerous times before (you know, these long things with text up there..."replies"), are not what we want, and not needed either.

You should quit attempting to brand merges as a bad thing. If it was bad, Wikipedia users would have been up in arms for years. Instead, they have twenty different templates to request and manage merges.

... By that you said anything he puts up you "will" edit to your liking. ...

Yet another lie by The Lord's Propaganda Minister. I merely said that I'd merge any new version page into the existing one.
Which, as I have explained twice in this post alone, is totally in line with our past two years of administrative work, and nothing out of the ordinary at all. In fact, the fact that somebody insists on creating more and more duplicate pages is somewhat special.

What I did say about anything he puts up is that it'll be reverted independent from where it is, simply because of the fact that he's banned.

And if you want to argue against that, please start with a logical explanation of why I should let a banned person work as usual. Because, to the sane mind, that kinda defeats the purpose.

... So in the end you have changed his multible times rather you want to admit it or not. ...

So in the end, you just showed that, no matter what you pretend, you neither read my replies nor have a basic understanding of MediaWiki software and administration. Because, had you done so, you'd know that I did nothing special on ModEnc. At all.

... It seems you just have a problem comprehending a view origenating from someone other than yourself.

You talk about comprehending other people's views after showing line over line of blatant ignorance of what I even did or didn't do?

How about you go back to the first post and start comprehending what's even going on here, what everybody's position is, what everybody did, and then try to lecture me about comprehension?

'cause as far as I can see, I'm repeating the same basic explanations about merging and how duplicate pages are unnecessary over and over again, and you still pretend "merging" is some kind of evil superweapon I used on VK and only VK.

If you comprehended what you were talking about, you probably wouldn't even be talking.

Your very good at twisting words around as you know very well what I ment when I said edit the slander out of the page with out adding your opinion to his versioning. I dont know how much simpler I can word it for you.

Wait a sec...*scrolls up to get the words*
The truth is not "my view" of the version history. The truth is only what VK apparently doesn't like to be broadcasted.

Once more: All I did to his versions listing was not transferring the slander, add his revisions, and "make it prettier".
Picking a better design is not changing the displayed opinion. It does not change the displayed information if it's in a table rather than an unordered list. It's just easier to read.
And adding his revisions is not "adding my opinion" either. Or are you going to pretend these revisions didn't exist or weren't named that?

The information displayed in the "official" part or RockPatch:Versions are, other than in VK's original version of that list, not a question of opinion.
It is a fact that versions 1.00 - RPCE74 existed and were named such.
It is a fact that the revisions and bugfix-versions depicted existed and were named such.
It is a fact that the future versions listed come straight from VK.
It is a fact that RP versions were originally numbered and are now named.
It is a fact that that lead to version-recognition problems with LaunchBase.
It is a fact that you cannot tell from "Hells Edition" and "Summer Edition" which one is newer than the other.
It is a fact that VK's insistence that CE is not 1.09 leads to confusion - bob displayed that in this very thread.

So QUIT. FUCKING. LYING. "RP:Versions is an opinion piece". Everything in the "official" section is the truth. And other than VK's propaganda piece, it's complete and free of slander.

The only thing that's based on opinion is the mapping in the lower section. The mapping seperated by a horizontal line. The mapping clearly marked "entirely community-created and not official". As VK wished.

Come. fucking. out. Show flag. Admit that you're a shill of VK, and nothing more.

But then people wouldn't listen to you anymore, would they?

You are the one attempting to twist reallity here. You twist anything thrown your way. You called me a hypocrit on the subject of his slander when I myself in the same post was against his slander. Do you not read? I said I was against slander. You in turn claim Im for it, even after I pointed out and then repeatedly said I was against it? That is were you twist it.

See? Exactly what I mean. You ignored everything I said, and just try to convince everyone I'm evil.

Whoever is inclined to believe this, scroll up to my previous reply and read my list of contents of VK's and my versions of RP:Versions. You'll see that the only thing that was not transferred was the slander, so the only omission made to VK's page blackheartstar could complain about is the slander.
Yet he claims it's okay to omit it.

It appears we have came to the point where we just repeat ourselves over and over word for word.

If you actually thought about my answers, we'd be past this already.

[Blade]

Arrgh, everyone thinks it needs to be one way or the other. As it stands, the current version of the versions page seems to be quite accurate and reflects the community knowledge and understanding of the rock patch versions. Its a wiki and Ren is correct, VK doesn't get to dictate the style of the page, he's providing raw information, he isn't the editor that gives final go ahead to the article as it is published. Originally, the page that Ren posted was IMO a big dig at VK due to Rens difference of opinion on how the RP should be developed and VK responded in kind. However that is no longer the case and the page as it stands should be IMO acceptable to both parties as the final word on the RP versions. I would personally like to know exactly what VK finds objectionable about the current version, it points out (accurately) that VK's naming system is idiosyncratic and while VK might not like that being spelled out in an official page, it is community consensus and that is what a wiki is supposed to be.

It might seem like I'm trying to play both sides here, but only because both sides have a point and both sides need to learn to compromise. The page as it stands IMO IS the compromise that everyone need to accept in order to move on.

[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.

[Renegade]

My god, I have to go to bed, so I'll do this quick and see if there's need for a longer answer tomorrow night

1


1
2

Did the "1" change through the addition of the "2"?


NO.
So get off this "OMFG YOU CHANGED EVERYTHING BY ADDING MORE!!!!" trip.

As said - more tomorrow night, if necessary.

[blackheartstar]

At no point in time was I out to make you look evil to others or against you personaly. The point was to change either your or VKs opinion as I described in a previouse post. After reading blades post I relized how over I went there. I stand by my comments but I should not have driven them so hard.

As for the trip its only in there that many times becouse I placed it everywhere you were  trying to make me come out as supporting VKs badmouthing when I was not. I know I could have said it once but I felt as many times as you tried changeing my words around Id return the favor point for point where you were accusing me. My bad.

[Electro]

I know I'm joining the fray too late, but this is a simple question for CnCVK: If CE isn't RP 1.09 then where is RP 1.09? It sounded like a good idea when someone said to name RP like Ubuntu Linux kernel versions, with the aliases so it could be for example RP 1.09 "Celebration Edition", RP 1.13 "Hells Edition" and so on, besides you CAN think of catchier names than "******* Edition". And about the revisions, it's like Windows, a million patches because the developers can't think ahead, but they at least test all the features so they see if it works and work out the bugs they find on the way, they don't leave the bug-finding to the oh-so-large community of Windows users, as only a minority send them error reports.