Difference between revisions of "User talk:Gboyers/archive2"
(→Questin about GTA Wiki)
|Line 75:||Line 75:|
[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 17:33, 15 May 2007 (BST)
[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 17:33, 15 May 2007 (BST)
Revision as of 18:23, 24 May 2007
To leave a message, please Reply Here.
- Use : at the start of all your lines to indent your replies to someone else, like this line.
- Also, Use four tildas (~~~~) to sign your name with the date, like this - Xenon 18:52, 29 July 2006 (BST)
For previous discussion, see /archive
About patrolled edits...
If I recalled correctly, you mentioned that one of my responsibilities is patrolling edits or something like that. Well, not long ago, there was an exclamation marks next to a couple of entries in the Special:Recentchanges Recent Changes page. I was unfamiliar with the meaning of this symbol so I tried to find out what it means by looking up in MediaWiki website, home to the developer of the very software that powers this site, Wikipedia, Wikia, and many other wikis (though not all of them, anyway). However, I made a mistake, probably because I'm still tired (for God know why... -_-), by looking up Page History instead of Recent changes for which I should've looked at. I got them mixed up. I was confused for moment when I couldn't find anything about exclamation mark thing there.... it only took a while when I suddenly realized I was looking at wrong article.... >_____________<
So, anyway, this glaring error was right in front of me but it only took me a while to realize it. I now learned that exclamation marks next to entries in Recent Changes is an indicator that the page in question is not patrolled edit (or something like that). I feel stupid for not catching this error sooner. Anyway, by the time I got that cleared up, exclamation marks are no longer there. So sorry about it. I'm still learning about this whole moderator stuff which came up to me unexpectedly and, well, heh, I was completely caught off-guard and unprepared. >.<
In conclusion, I'd just thought to share this (probably amusing) story of my error about a particular moment in the time for which I am, at this point, relatively somewhat inexperienced and new at this role for I has been newly appointed to along with George. Now, I got to go and read up on what the hell is "patrolled edits" anyway. Cheers! :p --Legion 17:15, 3 May 2007 (BST)
- Hehe - that's what tiredness does. When a user makes an edit, it is marked as not-patrolled (with the red exclamation mark). If you see an unpatrolled edit, you should look at it and then click "Mark As Patrolled" in the diff page. All edits made by staff are automatically marked as patrolled, but you can change this in Special:Preferences. Xenon (?) 17:28, 3 May 2007 (BST)
The Administrator, Vandal, and Anonymous
That subject title was supposed to read like a title of a theatrical play. ;)
Anyway, there has been major events going on for me lately. First of all, I have been appointed along with George as Moderators (and yes I'm politically moderate ;)) a several days ago. Then, not more than a week ago, over at Grand Theft Auto Wiki, A-Dust and I were appointed as Administrators (yes, both System Operators (SysOp) and Bureaucrats (don't you love those red tape? ;D)) over there! O_O!
Anyway, we were having problems with this pesky vandal that apparently goes under different IP with similar M.O lately. I'm not very technical person so I don't know if those different IPs involves proxying or anything. *shrugs* So I would recommend those staff members (obviously including myself as well ;)) to keep eyes out for those. One of the M.O.'s for this guy was that he/she always identifies himself/herself as Chip1990 even under those several IPs. I was getting frustrated with this guy so I had to block his/her latest IP for one week (I'd rather that the infinite block be only last-resort, logically...) but since this guy came under different IPs but similar M.O., this would probably renders the blocking useless and futile. I already had warned this guy (under different IPs, though, but with same M.O. once again) twice and yet this guy kept doing it despite our warning. So I felt that this action is necessary but I'm skeptical this would keep this guy off for a week... I don't know. :/
This guy was vandalizing through re-adding unsourcable information despite it having been removed earlier, repeatedly creating useless pages (or useless crap, shall we say) like an article on Japan, U.S. dollar, et cetera that has absolutely nothing to do with the Grand Theft Auto series.
Anyway, as usual, I'm under same user name and display name (Chief of Staff and Legion respectively) there just like here. --Legion 14:20, 4 May 2007 (BST)
- Thanks for the warning. I've made sure that GTW is pretty secure. Users have to register before they can edit any pages, and they also have to verify their email address. Neither of these precautions prevent spammers from editing, but it makes it very hard for them to keep it up if we keep banning them. I'm about to write a new NSfV policy, so hopefully we will be able to keep spamming to a minimum. I am of course bearing in mind that we don't have 24-hour Admin cover, but I can't go round promoting people without fully checking them out first, or they could do more damage than the spammers. That's why we have the Moderator group - giving people like you the opportunity to be useful but before you've proven yourself to be worthy of becoming Admins. I am considering creating an Staff-Only namespace for discussion of this sort of thing. Xenon (?) 15:44, 4 May 2007 (BST)
The deletion logs shows that you deleted the Krischna page, citing it as irrelevant. Well, I set it as a redirect to future Hare Krishna page because of the fourth paragraph under this archived version of Anywhere City page about Industrial district. It was clearly intended to refer to Hare Krishna but was mispelled... so I set it to redirect to the future article with the correct name for this, uh, gang and that I corrected the internal link in the Anywhere City article, since I never liked redirect link in the article. ;D Just thought you'd like to know. --Legion 02:02, 5 May 2007 (BST)
- I'd wait until we have the article before we start redirecting all over the place. Krischna isnt something that people tend to look up very much here. It isn't very important so it isn't really worth having a redirect, especially a broken one. Get some content on the page first. Xenon (?) 13:35, 5 May 2007 (BST)
- Sorting out red links (aka wanted pages) is probably the most useful thing you could do on GTW at the moment. Xenon (?) 20:48, 5 May 2007 (BST)
On unrelated topics, about categorization, I was actually aiming for the goal of having all categories categorized into a single category tree... with a root category at the top (or is it the bottom? ;P). The question, though, is.... what is the root category? Also, I was not able to narrow down Special:Uncategorizedpages Uncategorized pages down to sufficiently fewer enough categories so that they can be categorized into a root category, usually because I was not able to find a common thread (or something like that) for few of categories to be categorized into a category.
I am not sure if you understand what I mean by either of the above. I'll try to clarify further if you need. Thanks, Sergeant Boyer (what? That's what the Manager is, right? ;)). --Legion 19:21, 5 May 2007 (BST) (Lance Corporal, not to be confused with Lancer Corps, a corps of calvary soldiers armed with lance.)
- Having categories all categorised into a tree is absolutely NOT what we want. There is no way we're having that here. On Grand Theft Wiki, categories are ways to list and group similar pieces of information, to make stuff easy to find, and to make it easier to learn about particular categories. Categorisation isn't a game, and we gain nothing by having dozens of categories for the same thing. It's like having everything in its own subcategory, it just makes stuff a lot harder to find.
- If I want to look at a list of cars, I should be able to go to Category:Vehicles to see every car in every game, then Category:SAVehicles to look at all the cars in San Andreas. If Category:Vehicles only had subcategories in, then stuff would be a lot harder to find. Category:Vehicles does not need to be in another category, it is a basic element of a GTA game. If you can't find the page about Vehicles (even with redirects from things like Cars) then it's pretty hopeless, and a Category:Categories helps you no more than Special:Categories.
- Yes, we are using Sergeant's stripes for managers, I don't think we need to get into crowns, stars and half-nelsons just yet :) Xenon (?) 20:48, 5 May 2007 (BST)
- Actually, lol, no. I am not making categorization into a game... to be honest, one of my most preferred ways of browsing, whether it be on Wikipedia, Grand Theft Auto Wiki, or here, is browsing by category. But since there is no common root for all of this categories, that essentially renders my preferred method of browsing (that is, browsing by category) useless and futile. :/ --Legion 20:57, 5 May 2007 (BST) (To boldly browse where no one has gone before. (Yes, that is parodying on "To boldly go where no one has gone before." from Star Trek ;))
No problems, just got to used to a few things (such as the linking to the GTA series article and GTA game page). I'll try and keep the red links down until time allows for creation of those articles. I was just wondering, however, about the possibility of adding lists to this site, in similar fashion to the GTA Wikia. Similar to the Characters page. Just a thought. Thanks for the welcome. A-Dust 23:29, 7 May 2007 (BST)
Stationary vs. Spawning
I believe A-Dust is referring to "stationary vehicles" as the randomly parked vehicles within area. Spawning vehicles could mean both that and those in the traffic so I would recommend changing that to "parked vehicles" or something like that instead to avoid confusion to those readers. Just a suggestion. Thanks. --Legion 18:11, 10 May 2007 (BST)
- I realised that as I was making those edits. "Stationary" doesn't really explain much, it could mean anything. "Spawned" could mean stationary or in traffic. I still prefer the second one, because it is explaining vehicles that DO spawn, not ruling out those that might spawn or drive in. "Parked Vehicles" solves that, so yes we should use that one. Xenon (?) 18:18, 10 May 2007 (BST)
I hope GTA Wiki will continue to be in the Internet! I visit here every day! I like your logo.
Hi, I registered here a few days ago. I just want to ask, If I can use any of your material in my own GTA website? I'd need some pics. The website is going to be a finnish one. :) I haven't learned how to use this Wiki site yet, but I try to learn.
PS. Keep up the good work here.
Tuomas 17:33, 15 May 2007 (BST)
Sorry to pester you, but I noticed you got the gta games lined up on the left hand side of the screen, nice feature. How did you do this? Thanks --Shivers 19:23, 24 May 2007 (BST)