[05:39] <MooDoo> hello all
[08:23] <Unit193> First link is DOA. ---v
[08:23] <Unit193> !sponsor
[08:27] <tsimpson> the second part can be removed
[08:30] <Unit193> s/First/Second/  Right, exactly.
[08:39] <Pricey> !no sponsorship is <reply>You can find out about the package sponsorship process here http://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess
[08:39] <Pricey> @login
[08:39] <Pricey> !no sponsorship is <reply>You can find out about the package sponsorship process here http://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess
[08:40] <Pricey> !sponsorship
[08:40] <Pricey> !-sponsorship
[08:40] <Pricey> !-sponsor
[08:40] <Pricey> !no sponsorship is <reply>You can find out about the package sponsorship process here http://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess
[08:40] <Pricey> !sponsor
[08:41]  * Pricey wonders why it ignored the 2nd attempt
[10:03] <Unit193> Pricey: Sorry, forgot to say thank you, so thank you. :)
[10:03] <Pricey> Unit193: No probs.
[11:18] <Unit193> Well hey, calendar says an IRC meeting today.
[13:29] <MooDoo> Unit193: really?  missed that one even though I'm not really part of it :D
[13:31] <MooDoo> Unit193: where is the calendar?
[13:39] <tsimpson> !calendar | MooDoo
[14:05] <MooDoo> thank
[14:05] <MooDoo> I should be ashamed as I did know that :(
[15:58] <Pricey> Where's an nhandler when you need him.
[15:59] <Fuchs> on either rather long IRC holidays or in heaven
[16:06] <Fuchs> Pricey: given you are already here:   "$j:<chan> – matches users who are or are not banned from a specified channel"   VS   "/mode #here +q $j:#timbuktu   would quiet users within #here that are banned in #timbuktu."
[16:07] <Fuchs> Pricey: is that missing an ~  or is one of the two wrong?  (Compare: not banned   versus  banned)
[16:07] <Pici> "are or are not banned"
[16:09] <Fuchs> yes, which one of the two, then?  Banned, according to the example, but then  $j  should not match these that aren't, but ~  would
[16:09] <Fuchs> or am I missing something?
[16:09] <Fuchs> because the two subsets   "are" and "are not"  banned  would match 100% of all users
[16:10] <Fuchs> unless you are shroedingers user, that is
[16:10] <Pici> $[~]j<chan> matches users who are or are not banned
[16:10] <Fuchs> that would be somewhat better, but maybe just leave the  "are not" and provide a second example?
[16:11] <Pici> perhaps
[16:11] <Fuchs> (for those not seeing the reference: http://blog.freenode.net/2014/06/new-extban-j/)
[16:11] <Fuchs> then perhaps Pricey wants to fix that
[16:11] <Pricey> Thats a "help extban" quote
[16:12] <Fuchs> then perhaps Pricey wants to fix that and in addition to that: yell at people who initially wrote it, assuming charybdis
[16:12] <Pricey> Send a patch?
[16:12] <Fuchs> that would probably also work, but I was more talking about your blog post
[16:13] <Fuchs> since that is what people are reading right now, to avoid some confusion there
[16:15] <Pricey> I'm happy leaving it as a quote. There are other nuances not explained either, such as the modes it is applicable to. No wildcards etc.
[16:15] <Fuchs> *shrug*
[16:16] <Pricey> I could explain those and remove every possible source of confusion.
[16:16] <Fuchs> or just remove the very obvious source of confusion as a start
[16:16] <Pricey> s/I/we/
[16:17] <Fuchs> well, removing the "or are not " would already help a lot, I think.
[16:18] <Fuchs> And that should be trivial to make, given it is the blog and not the website
[16:18] <Fuchs> thinking of it, assuming it will end up on http://freenode.net/using_the_network.shtml at one point, where it is a huge pain in the rear end to change, fixing it first would probably be a good idea indeed :)
[16:18] <Pricey> All other extbans work in the same way and thats how theyre currently documented.
[16:19] <Fuchs> not on http://freenode.net/using_the_network.shtml
[16:19] <Fuchs> there it is only in the matching sense, with an example for the inverse  (see $a on http://freenode.net/using_the_network.shtml)
[16:21] <Fuchs> and for the sake of consistency: neither in the blog, see http://blog.freenode.net/2013/06/new-tlsssl-channel-modes-and-webirc/
[16:22] <Fuchs> so I personally would recommend removing the  "or are not "