in eternum+

Um... isn't today Monday?

You know, it's strange, but I always thought that it was "Hear! Hear!" Can think of logics that would lead to both.

CP - In the interest of relieving some of the noted strain on your chain ( ), a congratulatory message regarding your recent leap into (Post) Twuntdom is winging it's way to you as I type! Soz about the delay - congrats!

Um... I might be wrong, but I think DoN intended use of the word "mad" to mean "nuts" (UK), as opposed to the North American "furious" definition.

Thank you all. I dedicate my posting success to the great man himself... may he rest in peace... soon...

Ah! A perfect example of why guests should be allowed to post. Well sentimented, guest!

Perhaps Deathlist - The Band could perform at the reception?

Yeah, I reckon that's what it is.

Many happy returns of the day, Tempus!

Having found some change down the back of the sofa, I was able to conduct further experiments. Results are as follows. Although when you 'ignore' a user their original posts don't show up, rather unfortunately, quoted posts do. Thus: [pleasurable]Aaaaaaah![/pleasurable] becomes [distressing]Aaaaaargh![/distressing]

In the name of... research... I have elected to 'Ignore' a member. Only to see what happens, of course. Research trials indicate the following: the fact that the member has posted, appears. However, the text within the post is replaced with: If you click on 'View this post', the text that the member posted then apears as it would normally. If you close the thread and open it again, their post disappears, to be replaced once again by the options above. Rather unfortunately, I ran out of funding halfway through this research project, and am therefore unable to complete it at this time. The 'Un-ignore" option thus remains unexplored.

See? The DL really is a democracy, after all!

Sorry CP - have become incensed!

Another useful new feature. If you ignore a user, you can remove that from your "My Controls" page, after clicking "Manage Ignored Users". regards, Hein But what does ignore user actually do?

Congratulations on reaching that milestone. Now for twunt-dom. Ta! By my reckoning, only another several months...!

I was just wondering if anyone has heard anything about CLS of late. I just tried googling him in various languages, but to no avail. And I thought this the most suitable place for my 500th post. Hopefully this committment on my part will encourage reciprocity on his... Go Claude!

And speaking of looking at members' profiles... I've noticed that if you go into a member's profile and click in the Profile Options drop-down list (top right-hand corner), one of the selections is Ignore User. Anybody know what happens when you select this option? I'm hesitant to try it out on anyone lest I not be able to reverse it, and must unwantedly ignore them forever!

Aha! Thanks for that deadornot! I was wondering what that meant...

My goodness, are things ever heating up! After the following skirmish yesterday: @ 00:22: Quatloo (rv changes) @ 00:27: 88.107.27.48 (rv changes) @ 00:38: Quatloo (rv changes) @ 14:18: Gretnagod (rv changes) @ 14:41: Quatloo (rv changes) @ 19:36: RMHED (rv changes) @ 20:54: Quatloo (rv changes) @ 20:55: Quatloo (rv changes) @ 23:34: RMHED (rv changes) @ 23:39: Quatloo (rv changes) and today: @ 13:45: RMHED (rv to Quatloo's earlier version) outside parties have elected to intervene: Please stop the edit war Would all users please stop the edit war by reverting each others changes re: the death list website. Please discuss the issues here and let's come to a consensus about the best way to incorporate this information in the article. Thank you. TMS63112 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC) And thus The Wiki Wars progressed to a new level of play. The battle field is muddy, my friends, very muddy indeed: I am not sure that site belongs at all in the article except in the external links area. It is not a notable web forum -- it exists only on the web and its Alexa rankings are very low. Low Alexa rankings can be excused if the entity had a life outside of the web, but this isn't the case here -- such a non-notable site does not deserve half this article. I have even conceded to leave a longer-than-deserving paragraph about it (which includes contributions from more than one person). The information that keeps getting replaced without justification resembles a vanity page more than anything else, is poorly written, and overemphasizes the "importance" of this non-notable entity. Quatloo 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Hero of yesteryear replies: The Death List itself is monitored by the UK media. That can be proved by its recent mention in The Sun, which has the highest circulation of any English-language newspaper in the world. And, as a working British journalist myself, I can happily state that the Death List is more known than any other Dead Pool, or perhaps the who dead pool format. Given that the whole of Wikipedia is, in my opinion, starting to resemble a diary of an angst-ridden teen, I cannot believe [[ User:Quatloo|Quataloo]] is even arguing against the Death List being included more fully. If you want to take a look at the sort of toot that shouldn't be on here, I suggest you visit Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Now that is pointless! Gretnagod 01:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Antihero tries his/her best to appear objective by citing quanitifiability: I have read that coverage, and I disagree. Merely being covered once or twice does not make something notable, that falls into human interest genre of coverage and there are thousands of individuals and events in such stories every day which nobody would consider notable other than fleetingly. The proof is in the pudding, in this case, the web traffic, which is quite quantifiable and in this case truly negligible. The fact is, very few people visit that site. Quatloo 02:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC) And the voice of reason rings out from on high: OK, having read the comments and looked at the article history, let me try to summarize everyone's positions, in the hope of reaching a compromise everyone can live with. In Eternum, RMHED, and Gretnagod were proponents of keeping the separate Death List entry. After the AfD debate resulted in a merge, they have edited the article to include a separate section tilted "Dead pool variant" talking about the deathlist.net site. Their position seems to be that the site is sufficinetly notable and different from a "traditional" dead pool that it needs a separate section. They also note press coverage that the site has received as indicative of its notability. User Quatloo argues that the site is not particularly notable due to its low web traffic, and that a couple of press mentions do not warrant giving the site a separate section in the article. S/he does not object to an external link to the site, but would prefer the site not be mentioned in the body of the text. S/he also objects to some of the phrasing the other users have proposed. As a compromise position, s/he has written a brief description of the deathlist site for inclusion in the body of the text, without giving it a section. Have I fairly summarized everyone's positions? TMS63112 16:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC) When will it end, folks? How many roads must a man walk down? Don't know about y'all, but I'm gearing up for an exciting conclusion!

Although I think all the new changes/improvements are fab, especially the 'minor edit' feature (which I have already come to love), I do wish the little boxes next to each thread still indicated whether we'd posted in them or not. I found that quite useful. Any chance of having something similar against the prettily-coloured suitcases?

I propose the "pub test". One is fluent if one can go in a pub, order a drink, read and understand the front page of the local newspaper and discuss the main article with bar staff, all in the local language. Replace the paper with the local town cryer in cases of unwritten languages or illiteracy. Oh dear. Probably wouldn't pass then. Unless we can swap "understand the front page of the local newspaper" with "have a screaming argument with the other chefs in the kitchen"? After all, not all of us can afford to spend our days lounging round in pubs, reading the newspaper and engaging in intellectual debate. Some of us are in the back, slaving away, you know...

After giving it oodles of thought, I have voted yes. I pretty much hate the guests, and most of what they post. Generally, I am an exclusionist at heart, and most emphatically don't think that guests should be allowed in Dead Chat (God forbid!!). However, I am quite fond of the drive-by, and actually (sometimes) quite enjoy the ensuing repartee. I'm also a HUGE fan of that nutter who posts in the Niemeyer thread. I'd also hate to see MH's DLRI go to waste, especially as I was just beginning to get the hang of it. Furthermore, I remember having quite a thought-provoking debate with a guest about the source of social deviance. (Well, it certainly provoked my thoughts.) I agree with Star Crossed's point above; qualifying the following by first stating that I think our Moderators do a wonderful job of keeping us all in line and keeping everything running shipshape, surely with the host of Mods that we have, the guests can be managed? Admittedly, it got a bit hectic over the weekend, but maybe that was an anomaly? I take Rude Kid's point about how the mods sometimes have to trudge through multiplicitous rubbish in the mornings; as I am not a Mod, and am rarely up in the mornings, I don't know just how bad this is. And, I am still a bit lightheaded from the incident over the weekend involving my computer, a naughty link posted by a guest, and NASTY photos. Finally, I worry that w*nker guests who would normally simply drive by, post something sh*t, and then forget about us, will register, post the sh*t, and then continue to return, the act of registering causing them to pay more attention to the site than they would otherwise. I concede that it is easier to "deal" with members than with guests, but do we really want to become one of "those" sites (the likes of whom shall remain nameless...) that exist in a frenzy of banning?

Need I say more? Discussion of his health to be found somewhere in this thread.

To my knowledge, one or more members of this board are fluent in at least the following languages: Dutch English French German Spanish I may have missed a few, so pleae add to the list. Depending on how broadly you define the term 'fluent' you could potentially add Italian to that list. Potentially.

Noel - We here at the DeathList have been doing our research. You understand, of course, that we are particularly selective about those we grant interviews to, given the (obviously) high number of requests received on a monthly - nay weekly! - basis. Is this you?