User talk:42/Archive2009-11-16

Boss pages

I have made it into a table format for you. User:Wynthyst/Sandbox/bosses -- Wyn talk 18:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wyn. 42 - talk 18:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd also list any unique items they drop. It's another piece of info people are looking for from a boss. -- Wyn talk 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That might be something that people could add later, or I might add, but going to work with name prof map locale campaign, and elite skill. Check it out on my work page if you are interested in seeing it. It is also almost done. Thinking of using the same format for the other boss lists as well. Fourty Two 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Finally got the first table of them done, and moved (sort of) it to the new location List of Charr Bosses. Check it out, and (besides the unique drop) see if there is anything else that might be added or improved on the next one, and let me know. 42 - talk 23:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the name of the page according to our naming guideline to List of Charr bosses and also the name of the category to Category:Lists of bosses. -- Wyn talk 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Roll: 42/100

+30

HUNH??!!??

BTW, sign your posts the usual way please. 42 - talk 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally thought I signed. How odd. At any rate, the following signature should also explain your question: | 72 {U|T|C} 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When posting my response, and seeing the title, I finally figured it out, and in a way, you did kinda sign it. Fourty Two 19:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Show Preview

It prevents this from happening. ~Shard 03:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, the preview button is there for a reason, use it otherwise alot of people are gonna be unhappy. Simzy 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but a lot of the things I am doing is just in and out. Taking the time to sit there and find every single edit I want to make from outside, then going in and trying to find them inside the edit is impossible, and also takes too much time, leaves the file open, and allows too much possibility for ECs. 42 - talk 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is going to EC you, and there's no reason you need to edit the same section 10 different times. ~Shard 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has edited that page but you, and you've spammed the hell out of RC already. Take a peek at the history of that page to see what we mean. -Auron 03:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Besides which, would you rather have people upset because the links don't work or from the edits? I am fixing them as I find them. As I said before, taking the time to try to find all of them from outside, then scroll through (and most likely miss most of them) and find them in the edit pages is a ridiculous effort. All that would happen in that case is the same exact thing, a long list of edits, AND a lot of repeats and still broken links because I missed them the first time. 42 - talk 03:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So you going through and changing them one by one is supposedly causing less edits than if you went through and found multiple things that needed changing at once? You aren't making sense. -Auron 03:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ctrl+F? --RIDDLE 03:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"a lot of repeats and still broken links because I missed them the first time"

And the second time. ~Shard 03:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And the third. ~Shard 03:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And the fourth. ~Shard 03:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And the fifth. ~Shard 03:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) And the sixth. ~Shard 03:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Then try listening to someone else's way of explaining things Auron, instead of expecting someone to try explaining something the same exact way you would, and then showing attitude about it if they don't. I will explain again. Going through the amount of text behind the scenes to make that page the visible one it is takes a lot of work. Finding them on the visual side is a little easier; finding exactly where they are within the edit section of the page, very difficult. Finding them visually within the page, and cross checking that against the edit side, going back and forth, missing or screwing up the edits, and having to go back and fix them again is even more difficult and therefore equals more edits. 42 - talk 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh... no, it doesn't, actually. Try using multiple tabs. If you fix multiple things in one edit, you make less edits overall. It's really basic math. -Auron 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You go take a look at the edit side of that table page and tell me how easy it is. Having multiple tabs is something I used, and that is why the edits that were done, were done with a minimum of corrections needing to be done afterwards. Thereby reducing the possible number of edits instead of having to keep going back through and seeing the mistakes, and add more edits to the list to have to fix them too. You're right, basic math. Doing something correctly the first time means not adding more edits from having to go back afterwards and fix them again. 42 - talk 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Besides, when I could, I DID fix multiple links in the same section. One for the smaller area I needed to scroll through to fix the links I needed to, and also, to have a smaller section of edits to work with, instead of trying to correct the whole page at once. 42 - talk 03:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Shard, try saving the attitude for someone who is impressed by it. 42 - talk 03:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) It doesn't lead to more edits... just start editing that page (that noone else edits anyway) and fix the links you saw, then instead of hitting Save Page hit Show Preview and check for broken links again. Found some? Great, scroll to the Edit window again and use that nice little Feature called Search in your Browser (read by Ctrl+F in case you didnt know) type the Text near the broken Link you found and voila, you will have found the place in that huge wall of code where that link is hiding, fix it, scroll to the preview again, rinse and repeat until you found and fixed everything you want to fix. Then hit Show Preview again, check if everything is allright and THEN hit Save Page and be done. Takes less edits, time and effort while not annoying lots of ppl at the same time. --SilentStorm 03:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Finding them on the visual side is a little easier"

(Reset indent) Show preview does that. Obviously, you're too ignorant to even have tried it to find out what it does. "finding exactly where they are within the edit section of the page, very difficult." Ctrl+F "screwing up the edits" That's why yo use show preview, so nobody sees those mistakes and you don't fill up your contributions with 100 minor fixes. It's really not hard to do at all. The only valid reason for not using preview is when editing your css/js page, as previewing those does basically nothing. Your attitude is the one that needs to change. ~Shard 03:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the edits on that page are finally completed. You only find out afterwards if someone else has been editing at the same time or not. It has been my experience that the preview hasn't been showing ECs. They usually haven't happened to me until I save, then you have to go and re-fix the edited section. Frustrating enough when it happens to a talk page, it is even worse when editing a page like that one. You seem to assume that someone is going to sit there, and take months to learn all the little tricks, all the little ins and outs before editing one thing. THAT is the kind of attitude I mean Shard. You and others seem to want to get upset with them if they don't know every little trick you already know. I have used the preview button, and used it many times. You are the ignorant one, having an attitude like you do, if you think everyone who edits this wiki is going to automatically know everything about it from the beginning. 42 - talk 03:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm assuming people read the text "Please use the Show preview button before saving changes" right below the giant buttons. Edit conflicts are rare except on talk pages or when fighting vandalism. The page you just edited 39 times had no other contributors, except Auron, who EC'd you just to make a point. There is no reason to edit ne page 39 times in a row. I don't even think anyone has ever done that before. ~Shard 04:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Off-Topic) Guild:Naps on Fire history. --RIDDLE 04:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You also didn't look too close either, because most of the edits were to sections within the page. They show up because those sections are a part of that page. As I said, going through the entire page would (no matter how good you think you are) almost guarantee to generate at least one EC, more than likely many. They may be rare, but the longer a page is under edit by one person, the odds increase that there will be an EC. It is rarer for regular information pages, agreed. But I do not have the attitude that I am the only one working on this wiki. I try to allow for the fact that others might see something that needs to be fixed, and I don't know, take it upon themselves to fix it. 42 - talk 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Or take a quick look at the history to estimate the probability of being EC'd. --JonTheMon 15:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Category correction

I changed your NPCs with multiple professions category to Category:Bosses with multiple professions. It's a better fit. -- Wyn talk 00:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was intending to have that category put on non monster characters as well, not just the bosses. Specifically, any NPC helpers that have multiple professions. Might have to have another category for boss multiples too I guess. I haven't done any research to see if there are any other NPCs besides bosses that have multiple professions, though. 42 - talk 01:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you had specified in the category that it was bosses with multiple professions. Sorry, but I'm a bit of an organizational freak and have worked hard on the category tree/management here. I like to see it kept as clean and unambiguous as possible. -- Wyn talk 01:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It turns out I didn't think that far ahead, but was planning on editing to reflect any other NPCs added to that list, and then change the internal text to have non-boss specific information. Similar editing style in the end, just a different way of getting there I guess. 42 - talk 01:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User page

Do you need some help setting up your userpage? -- Wyn talk 02:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I decided I am going to be using one similar in design to User:Linsey_Murdock's. I like the layout ideas, and I am currently working on making a guide at the same time, for me, and also for anyone else interested in doing a similar design. The guide will ultimately have the changes and any text the potential user would have to make and use to make the example work for them. Any suggestions and/or recommendations are welcome. 42 - talk 02:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that design was done by User:Emily Diehl I believe. Just be sure you aren't making any changes to Linsey's stuff while you are working on it. Several users already are using that similar design (User:Regina Buenaobra, User:Robert Gee are two off the top of my head). -- Wyn talk 03:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not changing any of Linsey's pages or information on her pages. What I am doing is going in, copying the source, putting it in a page in my user space, then editing my copy of it, taking out the specific info Linsey has on hers. To the best of my knowledge, this is allowed under the freeuse license this wiki operates under. 42 - talk 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It is, usually they want credit. -- Halogod35 03:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Once I get everything tweaked the way I want it (and it is already as well), Linsey will be given credit as the main source of my user page design. Also, Wyn, I have looked around but haven't seen it yet. Is there a way for a user to see a list (other than the contributions link) of the sub pages they have in their user space? And also, is there an easy way for someone to delete certain subpages as well? 42 - talk 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1st question, you can go to special:prefixindex and enter the username and set it to the user namespace to see all the subpages for a particular user.

2nd question. If you wish a page deleted from your userspace simply add {{delete|U1|speedy}} to the top of it, see GWW:DELETE for more details. -- Wyn talk 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

K, so the user cannot delete a page on their own space themselves then? That is how I am understanding it to be. It doesn't matter to me if it is that way or not, but it helps knowing it is that way for future reference. 42 - talk 03:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) No, users do not have deletion permission, that's what the sysops do (amongst a gazillion other things). -- Wyn talk 03:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

I created a new category for your userboxes and added them all to it Category:Military branch userboxes.-- Wyn talk 04:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, was going to do that when I got done. Thanks Wyn (and I still have more to go.) Hopefully, others will see these tags and appreciate the sacrifice the Veterans made for their Country. 42 - talk 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Userboxes is invalid and is unnecessary as the category I created is a sub category of the Category:User box templates. Also, if you are going to have your tabs on your talk page, you need to remove the __NOEDITSECTION__ control on User:42/TabsTop as it disallows editing by section which is necessary on your talk page. Thanks! -- Wyn talk 04:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to edit the settings so that it can be adjusted for a specific page? Specifically, just allow edit of sections on the talk page? And still be able to keep the tabs? 42 - talk 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You would have to create a second set of tabs (I know because I had to do it for something Linsey wanted). That control overrides any page specific code. -- Wyn talk 05:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

K Thanks 42 - talk 05:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Found it, sections are now editable. 42 - talk 05:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, since you know so much about the userboxes, is there a way to auto add another category like I see on the other ones? And if so, how would one go about it? I want to auto add something like the one I just put on my page, something about serving the US, if it is like I made on mine, that would work, but that differentiates between active and veterans. Something that would work better on both active and vets I think would work the best. 42 - talk 05:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Add <includeonly>[[Category:Whatever category you want the page to be added to|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> to the template. Most people also then link the word user back to that category in the box text (ie This [[:Category:Whatever|user]] is a.....) so that people can just click on the word user and find other users in the category. Of course I added the nowiki tags so you could see the code. -- Wyn talk 05:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I make a slight change to your userbox box? -- Wyn talk 05:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What kind of a change are you talking about? And why? Also, is it something that I could learn how to do so I learn my one new thing for the day? 42 - talk 05:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just centering the userboxes in the space (I'm weird about that kind of stuff, and you can see what I did in the history. If you don't like it, you can undo it. -- Wyn talk 06:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) nvm, you ec'd me I'll leave you be. Have fun :D -- Wyn talk 06:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the pointers, but I think, unless it is to fix a serious violation, you should not be messing around with someone else's user pages without their permission. I did not give it, I specifically asked what it was you wanted to do. 42 - talk 06:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I DID ask first, was holding the edit until you said ok, but then you ec'd me. As I said.. have fun. -- Wyn talk 06:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Try this.... User:Wynthyst/Sandbox/42 userboxes -- Wyn talk 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios

Those images of the Blue Man Group that you uploaded have been tagged for deletion because of copyright violations. Those images don't fall under the GFDL, which is what GWW uses.

BTW, Blue Man Group is awesome.--RIDDLE 07:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Posted response on one of the file talk pages. Since the same basic discussion applies to all of them, saw no need to repeat it for each one. Hopefully this will end up being an allowed use. Either way, U R right, BMG IS awesome. 42 - talk 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW Riddle, do you use userbox tags? and if so, where is your users who like blue man group entry in the category? :P 42 - talk 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Added additional request for deletion on the pics I had uploaded previously, in accordance with the request from BMG management. 42 - talk 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)