User talk:SuperSajuuk

Re: Test account
I'll desysop that test account since that was part of a specific test, it wasn't a sysop bot. However inactive sysops showing up in the admin list isn't something that should be "fixed" by removing sysop flags. That would be considered a software bug and should be fixed by Wikia fixing their own code so that the random list of admins excludes sysops that haven't logged in recently; for that matter accounts with a bot flag should also be excluded. ~ Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (Local Talk &#8285; Animanga Talk) 23:07, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

QuakingStar
Sajuuk come on now. You know you were trying to be prick about it to QuakingStar. No need to lie. And after I answered his question your comment was unneeded. --Rai 水 (talk) 21:20, July 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh yes I'm sure when you posted to QuakingStar, it was out of good intentions. Maybe your first sentence, but going on to say what makes him think he needs to be notified of himself being blocked was unneeded and obviously was to antagonize him, which he responded by saying what he did. Had you just say the first sentence only, then maybe he wouldn't have responded to you. And what he said to you was not even harassment. Stop playing innocent. --Rai 水 (talk) 22:25, July 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Good to see this conversation is over. Everybody play nice now. Hint.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol.svg (talk) 23:45, July 13, 2016 (UTC)

Block threat
I don't think you (or anyone) should threaten new users to be blocked when their edits weren't "harmful". I mean, (s)he didn't clear the article and wrote stuff like "NARUTOSUCKSSASUKESCOCKXDDDDD", (s)he just changed the character order. Asking her to stop in a friendly way is enough, so please do that in the future, k? :) • Seelentau 愛 議 15:29, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't, but others may do. If I were to edit in good faith and got told that I'd be blocked if I would continue, I wouldn't want to edit further and just leave the wiki. Maybe we should lighten the template's tone a bit. • Seelentau 愛 議 15:34, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone writes the above in articles, I don't bother with shorter bans, because the user obviously registered just to spam the wiki. There's a difference in users that don't know how a wiki works and just make mistakes because they don't know better and assholes that just want to write shit in articles. I won't tolerate the latter here, so I ban them forever. And I don't really care about any task force or whatever, it's my job to handle these users, so I do it. That's why I'm a sysop, after all. Also, it's beyond me why you think I would listen to you in any matter regarding my work here. I suggest you save yourself the time in the future. • Seelentau 愛 議 15:44, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I use infinite blocks they way they're intended to be used, don't worry. Again, there's no need for you to direct your words at me, you can do better things in that time. • Seelentau 愛 議 15:52, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Re: ‎re: message:
Is that so.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 21:50, July 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * You can save the pity party for the chat room. I've been watching the "Template, threaten with bans" for months now. I've elected to not say anything because of my very "hands off" approach to dealing with the small things (and yes I consider this a small thing).--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol.svg (talk) 22:47, July 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * Fine Sajuuk. We get that no one until now has wanted to change the template, and sorry that you happened to be the one to be put out there for doing the "norm" (warn others when they break the rules). However, the problem isn't the fact that now someone wants to change the template, it shouldn't matter why now. Change is normal. What should've been done was it being brought up on a consensus thread. --Rai 水 (talk) 23:30, July 17, 2016 (UTC)