User talk:Yoshida Keiji/Archive 2

images moves Your movement of the wallow image was incorrect, and when you do move images, change all the links to that file too. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 18:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC) I have just realised it was a generic image and I am having trouble to undo/revert the move. I was moving Brutus when you messaged me... so that one too. Yoshida Keiji talk 19:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Quoting revisions If you're going to quote revisions, don't make it appear as if those users actually posted that on the talk page. Link to the revision instead of their user page; e.g. 91.62.54.158 at 10:43, 2009 May 24. --Silver Edge 01:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I was actually about to ask particularly you about that. I have seen you doing it before (and tried to replicate in several occassions) but in the edit summaries and there was no way for me to find out how you were linking. You have been faster to message me than myself to you for a matter of few hours. Now that I have a clear example I know how to do it. I was guessing you were just copy pasting between "[[ ]]", but in fact the procedure is if I understand correctly to: First step: Copy the entire URL from the browser, Second step: Copy the user IP/name + timestamp (from the history page?), Third step: Include in a link. Yoshida Keiji talk 10:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Spell check Does your web browser have spell check? Cause your overhaul edits usually come with several typos. --Silver Edge 03:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC) My Internet Explorer has none. Any recommendations for Windows XP? Yoshida Keiji talk 04:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't know any since I stopped using Internet Explorer a long time ago. I use Firefox, which comes with spell checker. Safari also comes with a spell checker. --Silver Edge 04:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC) I concentrate a lot when overhauling, if a page is less than 5.000 bytes I probably won't leave much typos. But with overbloated pages above 15.000 bytes, all messed up and untouched for months, it's gonna be inevitable since I pay more attention to: General contents overlook, Guidance, Descriptions, Tactics, Suggestions... Double-checking links, Noob's input, Reducing redundancy, Taking out crap information, etc. Typos unfortunatly is the last thing I worry about, considering all the efforts above had certainly already taken me like an 1h. I preview like five (5) times before submitting... by that time, if I miss anything... it's gonna be the moment to remember wiki is a community effort (^_^). Yoshida Keiji talk 05:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC) I could understand your reluctance if spell checking was difficult, but it's really easy. For example: Speckie. Typos are important even if other considerations are worth more time and energy. Also, it's important that each of us takes responsibility for copy-editing our own contributions because this is a community effort. It's a bit like not picking up your dishes in a youth hostel because everyone staying there is supposed to help keep things clean. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC) YAY!!! (^_^) SPECKIE INSTALLED!!! Works nice, now I will have to get used to see a shower of red underlines for each new word I type. Thank you TEF and good to see you around again. Yoshida Keiji talk 06:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Super! Glad it's working for you. (And yeah, the redlinks get annoying, especially when there's all this game jargon, like Asura, Norn, and so forth.) I'm sure you'll get used to it in no time at all. Thanks for the "wb." I needed a break from a certain type of clean-up/bookkeeping on this wiki. Also thanks for trying to keep up with the skill histories — that's among the more thankless of thankless tasks around here. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Skill history pages Thanks for your work on the skill history pages, but please remember that when you add a {{Skill infobox}} to a skill history page, the categorize = n parameter has to be included in the infobox to prevent that skill history page from being categorized and messing up the skill tables throughout the wiki. For example, Forceful Blow/Skill history is appearing on List of warrior skills, Hammer Mastery, Hammer attack, etc., because you used {{Skill infobox}} on a skill history page without the categorize = n parameter. --Silver Edge 07:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC) It's exactly what I wanted to say him :) The problem was with Web of Disruption (PvP)/Skill history, in particular. Luckily, the amount of such skills isn't high in new update, and this can be fixed easily. --Slavic 08:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Regarding your almost-on-topic post about b'crat selection In your response to the question of the role of b'crats and how this wiki should choose them, you raise some valid points...but I do not think they relate to the question at hand. They sound to me as if you want to raise a new topic about the role (and selection) of sysops. Let me describe how I interpreted your remarks and maybe you can clarify for me (and others) how they are connected to the proposal of making the b'crat term indefinite (instead of 12 months), dismantling ArbCom, making B'crats into sysops with an extra power, and changing how they are selected. To be clear: you ask good questions about the wiki and about the role of sysops; they just aren't within the scope of Pling's proposal. "How am I supposed to participate in elections? How to make the right choices? " Do you mean how do you choose a b'crat for a life term? Choose people you trust to make decisions in the best interests of the wiki, who respond in a timely fashion, and who can communicate — same as choosing sysops or b'crats now. "If a "new" Bureacrat is to be promoted among current sysops...old election candidates seem pointless as what matters is how much active they have been as of the last months." How so? The activity level of a candidate has little to do with whether the person acts for the good of the wiki and if they are sufficiently responsive. (There's also a question of whether "best for the wiki" is the same as "best for frequently-contributing users" and/or "best for the target audience." I would argue that "the good of the wiki" has to balance the needs of contributors with those of lurkers and readers.) "Which means...these should be users who are "very active" in maintenance and bookkeeping on a "very regular" basis. " "I don't see administrator ranks keeping the wiki organized or updating pages." No, to your first point and yes to your second: individual sysops don't need to be "very active" at all. Bookkeeping does not require special tools, as you can see from the work done by Konig, SilverEdge, Alex, Kirbman, Tub, and yourself, among many others. It's not up to sysops alone to keep the wiki organized. What sysops need to be able to do is, as a team, handle issues in a timely fashion. The current team seems to be doing that (especially if we formally include b'crats as part of that team.) "How can regular users find out? " "How can a regular user know if they are doing well?" (whether someone demonstrates the qualities required for adminship) That's a great question for which there is no good answer. On some wikis, there have been terrific sysops or b'crats who rarely used their tools. They were good for their sites because they took actions which helped prevent drama (so they didn't need to block someone), helped frame debate (so they didn't need to respond to an issue later), and inspired others to work vigorously to reduce the amount of janitorial work (e.g. deletion or bookkeeping) required. In contrast, I've seen other communities destroyed by people who frequently used their powers, because they acted against the best interests of the wiki (e.g. punishing people they don't like or cutting their friends too much slack or being too overbearing). It's easier for frequent-contributors to evaluate this, which is why there are sometimes minimum-contribution requirements. Still, you are doing all the right things: looking at recent contributions, reading the logs, and so on. This is beyond the scope of the proposal. "Since there has been no arbitration requests for years and only one (meh) RfA... I don't know if the current Bureaucrats are perfoming (active/inactive) as expected (positive/negative). " Actually, that's the reason for the current proposal: there's no need for the outdated system which separated the role of b'crat and sysop and created an artificial appeals process (there probably was at the outset, but no longer). "Are Bureaucrats supposed to be only 3 or could there be more of them? " They could be 2 or 10. Three is a good number because it means that someone is usually around and the responsibilities are shared, without decision making slowed down by needing to develop consensus across a large group. This, too, is beyond the scope of the proposal. "Elections will keep coming but I still cannot take part..." I don't see why. You have the same data that everyone else has. Aren't you able to evaluate whether you trust a candidate to serve the wiki well? In fact, I would argue that you already know which people (in your estimation) would make good sysops and/or b'crats, which would make bad ones, and which haven't been around enough recently for most of the current contributors to draw a reasonable conclusion. (If you send me an email, we can compare a couple of names privately, if you want.) I want to reiterate that I think you are asking good (sometimes very good) questions about sysops and b'crats. Unfortunately, they aren't within the scope of the current proposal. You might, therefore, be interested in formulating your own proposal about modifying the role of the sysop and/or a process for removing powers from those who are no longer active (along with some sort of definition of "active" and "inactive.") – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC) A couple things to add to that; this wiki is over 5 years old now. There's 5 years of contributions, interactions, trolling, troll-banning, dramatic discussions, dramatic users, and dramatic users getting banned to look over. Some sysops (very few, at this point, but some) were also sysops on GWiki before GWW was formed, so that's another year or two of "stuff" to study that will help you gauge how suitable a person is for the role. Secondly, and TEF kind of touched on this earlier; the job of the sysop is to administrate contributors, not content. We don't have the final say on content discussions, we don't protect pages to end a revert war on our favorite edit, we don't block users who add stuff we don't like to articles (...most of the time, anyway). Sysop tools aren't built for content editing, they're mostly for policing the userbase. The userbase's job is to do all the stuff you mentioned - bookkeeping, general maintenance, keeping pages up to date, tagging stuff for deletion, etc. If a sysop feels inclined to help with that stuff, good on him - but it's not part of the sysop's job to do so, he's just doing it as an editor. This is a topic that gets brought up on GW2W fairly frequently these days, but our response is usually the same. Editing and sysopping take different personal skill sets and different mindsets. If someone can do both, great - but a great editor does not automatically make a great sysop, and vice versa. In my case, I don't play Guild Wars and I haven't since 2009 - I would be next to useless trying to update content pages because I'd have no idea what I was talking about. But I know the wiki and its community damned well, and my sysop tools are used to protect it from harm. TL;DR - the job of a sysop has almost nothing to do with editing content. This wiki confused the two several times in the past, and several solid contributors ended up making awful sysops (and most ended up quitting not long after). -Auron 01:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Choosing: Regular users to be promoted. Yes, I could tell. Sysops to become Bureaucrats. Can't tell, the only case I saw intervention was the banning of certain user who wouldn't listen to messages posted in his/her talk page... Which in my opinion was veeery late. Bureaucrats... harder to tell than sysops...because...based on what? If I am to vote for Bureaucrats I don't have any backing to say: "-I support this guy because of X, Y and Z.-". Because technically speaking...I never saw a thing. That is what I ask with: "How am I supposed to participate in elections? How to make the right choices?" I appoint this guy... ...Based on what??? Same for: "If a "new" Bureacrat is to be promoted among current sysops...old election candidates seem pointless as what matters is how much active they have been as of the last months." Since I never get to see anything...How am I supposed to evaluate them? Is there some sort of list or log where I can see what the current administrators have done "for the sake of wiki"? Regarding: "Which means...these should be users who are "very active" in maintenance and bookkeeping on a "very regular" basis. " "I don't see administrator ranks keeping the wiki organized or updating pages." This is in relation with the promoting of new sysops and the denial to remove the inactive which is negated with: "-Since tools are unlimited...there is no need to take them away from them.-"... The problem I see is... Toolcarries who have not used for long = is non-sense. There is no point of having people listed who just won't make use of them... And for the last three points...it's the same I have been running around in circles all this time... I can't select anyone for Bureaucrat because I have no way to tell what they did, how they did it, nor which were the results of their actions...? Because of the same reasons...there no way I could judge if its better or not to make them permanent or continue a year period. Or changing election process and everything else... I am not going to pick one person just because yes. Yoshida Keiji talk 17:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC) I still don't understand your reluctance to help select a b'crat. If they haven't done anything that you can see, vote no or ask them why they should have your vote and/or to point you to examples of their behavior that make them suited to the role. If they are any good, they will no have trouble pointing out decisions they've made, drama they've mitigated, or ways in which they've influenced the wiki for the good of the community. (Personally, I never vote yes for someone who says, "I've been around for a while; you know my record" — I expect people who want the responsibility of a wiki Jedi to be able to explain why they are suited for the job.) I don't understand what you mean by "since I never get to see anything". You get to see the same thing that everyone else does: you've seen (for example) Auron respond to Drama, you've seen Jon enact a comprehensive system for dealing with bots, and Pling and Tanetris help to articulate policies for the future. (These are all events involving past candidates for b'crat that happened within your tenure as an active contributor.) In other words, you've seen what people do, how they do it, and the results of their actions. They might not have been using the b'crat roles, but it gives us insight into their character, their ability to act within the interests of the wiki, and their ability to follow-up...all qualities important to the role. The reason for making the b'crat terms indefinite (instead of the current 1-year duration) is exactly because there's very little stuff for b'crats to deal with, so there's very little reason to vote 3x /year anymore. Re: why do we have inactive sysops instead of removing their powers after a certain amount of time. That's been a question that people have been asking (and answering) for as long as the wiki's been around. The argument is: if we trusted the person with the tools in e.g. 2006, why would we suddenly distrust them in 2012? On occasion, this has turned out to be useful: an otherwise inactive sysop has shown up during e.g. a bot storm and been able to set matters right. It has never turned out to be a bad thing. My feeling is that this is a circular argument: those in favor of the status quo can't see any reason for changing it and those against can't see any sense in the policy in the first place...and that argument never persuades the undecided to agree with removing powers. Personally, I agree with you that anyone who hasn't used their powers in 12 or 24 months doesn't need them anymore. In this day & age of hacking, this opens the wiki up to an easily-preventable risk (although it's tiny), and, we could make the policy that b'crats could, at their discretion, re-grant sysop powers after a request by any sysop in good status returning to the wiki (instead of requiring a time-consuming RfA). But neither am I bothered enough by the status quo that I am willing to spend my time promoting a policy change. I hope my responses are helpful to you. If they aren't, please keep asking, and I'll keep trying my best to address your concerns. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Moving content from the rest of the wiki into the feedback space Regarding this edit, due to licensing incompatibility, you're not suppose to move content from other namespaces into the feedback namespace. In the future if someone places something elsewhere in the wiki which should be in the feedback namespace, all we can do is inform them and hope that they repost it themselves. --Silver Edge 21:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Would this: Template:Miss-placed talk work? Yoshida Keiji talk 05:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC) I've moved it to {{misplaced feedback}} and made a few adjustments that I hope are satisfactory. (The other thing that Greener and I used to do was to post a note on ppls' talk pages using {{Feedback_reminder}}. Basically, we'd copy their original text and put it into the template. Your idea of just putting a note on the talk page might be better. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC) I think there is an issue related to naming as Game Updates are turned to Feedbacks as well. The redirect shall be to the related Game Update page instead of creating "new" suggestions. And yes, leaving a note where the comment was misplaced is better than moving to user page, which would become hidden from the userbase while leaving at mainspace could better prevent future repeated mistakes by others. Side note: I liked more red, or any color that represents error like orange maybe? Purple doesn't seem a "pay attention" color. Yoshida Keiji talk 07:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Be careful about removing posts Be careful about removing posts, too (as you have done with some other edits, e.g. this one, which removed two different comments that had been on the page for years without causing any harm or distraction. GWW:TALK only makes allowances for deleting malicious content (and requires that any type of content that is moved be annoated with the appropriate {{moved}} tags on source & destination). The other stuff that you are doing on talk pages is useful for following conversations (e.g. fixing the indents, attributing posts, correcting syntax, adding section headings). I mostly don't bother anymore unless people seem to be restarting an old (and no longer relevant) discussion or a current discussion is getting hard to follow. And I'm a little surprised you're finding it interesting, since you have all these other projects going on at the same time (skill histories, trophy normalization, walkthrough stabilization, ...). However, if you're willing to do the work, I'm happy to enjoy the results. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC) I have posted proposal updates at: Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Talk_pages#Update_.22Removal_of_content.22_ADVERTISING:_trading_posts_and_guilds_event_self-promotions. Yoshida Keiji talk 07:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Also, please avoid splitting comments, even when a comment is replying to two different comments. --Silver Edge 05:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Oops Thanks for signing my post (I proofread...and still missed it). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Bookkeeping (hero behavior) I recently made some changes to hero behavior and it occurs to me that I'm not sure whether some of the bullets belong there or in unexpected hero behavior. My understanding is that the main article should focus on how the AI behaves generally, regardless of whether it's what a human would do or the most efficient. The unexpected sub-page might have overlapping statements, but its focus is on specific skills rather than generalized behavior. My most recent edits were made on that basis. Is that how you see it, too? If I got it drastically wrong, let's move this discussion to one of the talk pages so everyone else can join in (and see the consensus). Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately, tonight I have run out of time. And yesterday I had to address my guild's management which left me no time to do my planned wiki activity. I have done as much as I could this day by progressive Recent Changes listing. Will continue everything else tomorrow. Yoshida Keiji talk 14:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry for the delay. Yes, I share the same focus. Main article for generals, both positive and negative. Unexpected sub-page is skill specific. Any other questions? As in any particular issue besides the above? Yoshida Keiji talk 12:18, 10 July 2012 ( Thanks. (Just wanted to make sure I wasn't accidentally changing the focus.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Guilds on the wiki Regarding Guild article on the wiki and how they came to be: I have no idea of the background (and I've looked). Guilds existed here when I first learned of GWW (that was soon after I started playing, but long after GWiki was sold to Wikia and after ANet offered to host this wiki officially). It makes perfect sense to me that ANet would like to host an area that included Guilds (since the game has no tools to do this). Unfortunately, the original implementation created so many special rules around the pages that maintenance of the guild space has always been a nightmare...and the system has such a bad reputation that there's huge resistance at GW2W to doing anything like that for GW2. However, the wiki isn't the best place to host a guild: it provides only a fraction of the required tools: there's no forum, no blog, no sign-up calendar, no RSS, no shoutbox, and it forces people to be public with their ideas/names/etc. What the wiki can be good for is making it easy to recruit/find guilds, but because of the original policies, it's been difficult to gain any traction on ideas that expand the use of the guild space beyond it's current "this is our guild" functionality. I suppose there's an opportunity to change that now: many of the people who strongly objected to evolving the guildspace are gone...and we've scrapped some of the worst rules that created unnecessary maintenance nightmares. But I think it would be a lot of effort with insufficient benefit. (Still, if you have some ideas, I'm happy to discuss them with you and help you flesh them out and perhaps even get them rolling. You might even change my mind about whether it's worth the effort.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Okay, let's swim here a bit. The policy is at Guild Wars Wiki:Guild pages, shortcut: GWW:GUILD and the talk page Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild pages has six archives. This is going to take me some time to submerge. Maintenance is covered in Guild_Wars_Wiki:Guild_pages#Inactivity.2C_clean-up.2C_and_deletion. Setting self-goals. I will try to find which were the "nightmares". Resistance in GW2W: I'm not sure if I will be buying it so I may not care about it at all (due to "-Dying is okay.-" "new" "philosophy???" (can't remember the name of the game developer saying that in the promotional trailer but want to punch him in the face (male, slim and tall).), JQ Bots pawned ANet, no physical dimension for characters, etc.). The wiki isn't the best place to host a guild. Completely agree, I myself have trouble to find a good free server. Currently using forumer but that site's new management is a total disaster. Maybe ANet could host itself an exclusive free server of Guilds. Recruiting and finding: This is something I'm interested with at the moment, not as a user but as a bookkeeper. I was just checking the Category:Guilds and found out that several (historical) guilds are still listed due to Categories and strongly believe they should be removed so that the listing is fresh and updated...or delete the page itself. Which were the "worst rules"? A lot of effort with insufficient benefit: I have seen User:Ich bin marc working on it Special:Contributions/Ich_bin_marc. I don't know which is the progress status. At a first glance in the guild policy , deletion section: I find 3 months wait period to tag {{inactive guild}} is too long. I believe players may completely forget about it. Should be monthly in my opinion and should also have an automatic mail system (no-reply) to notify it's creator to update it. Since Guild spaces are maintened by their members, all wiki bookkeepers should be able to pass the maintenance "ball" to guild members instead. I don't recall Administrators deleting Guild pages, maybe because I never payed attention to that. It's funny that Guild Wars Wiki:Deletion policy itself has no exclusive section for Guilds, it should. I will start reading the archives. Yoshida Keiji talk 21:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Let me know if you can explain why the guild space was created the way it was from the archives; I've read through them and I can't quite understand the reasoning behind it. The worst rules in my opinion were everything except the minor syntax requirements: article name is guild name (i.e. title case and the tag is in the infobox), the guild uses the guild infobox template, and people otherwise follow wiki policies about talk pages and articles. The rest... required non-guild members to police the guildspace regularly, discover violations, pester the article creators to fix those errors, and punish repeat transgressors. No wonder so many hate it now. Originally, the policy was that any guild page that wasn't kept up to date got tagged, possibly merged to "historical guild," and sometimes deleted. I think this is a waste of time. There's no reason (imo) for the wiki community to care if a guild page is stale or not, since it has no affect on anyone else. The wiki can have 40,000 guild articles and it's not going to slow things down. You say three months is too long? I say let's stop worrying about it altogether. The policy now says we can delete stale articles whenever we like; the tag is a matter of convenience (makes it easy to find the stale ones) and politeness (give people a chance to remove the tag). The old policy required several intermediate steps, so it was worse still. (And yes, there used to be regular move/deletion of guild pages, depending on the policy at the time.) There are a couple of folks (like Marc) who periodically go through and tag stale guild articles (probably using a DPL script to find them...and accidentally generating a lot of RC traffic, btw). But they really needn't bother because the policy allows stale articles to be deleted after 12 months; there's no requirement to tag them for deletion. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Honestly though, like I said on GW2W (I think), you don't want 40,000 guild articles, because then it interferes with people being able to find guilds to join. If that's your only stated goal of the section, then you want to fight bloat as much as possible. WoW wiki had server pages/subpages where guilds could put their name up, in theory to make it easy for someone to find them - but when I started playing in 2009, the vast majority of them had disbanded or quit playing, and it was impossible to contact them regarding an invite. When a guild breaks up, they rarely (if ever) strike their name off the wiki's list of guilds, so it gets bigger and bigger and less and less useful for actually finding a guild. At that point, it just becomes a terrible half-archive of a portion of the guilds on any given server, without any real reason why, and it's nowhere near complete and they vary in writing quality and it's just... pointless, really. Not having a section at all would be far better for the wiki than having one without any way to prune it. -Auron 00:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Auron: Now that you mention "When a guild breaks up, they rarely (if ever) strike their name off the wiki's list of guilds," withing my GW life, I had been officer in several other guilds before creating/leading my own guilds to finally succeed with [ASIA]. Everytime I did return to wiki to clean-up this would happen: Guild:Asia Pacific Guardians Of Kirin (historical) (While often the most important, the guild leader is not the one that decides the ultimate fate of a guild's wiki page. - Removed outdated information.) by Greener. Guild:Peace Love Unity Respect Credo (historical) (Cant delete so... last news edition.) Guild:Mount Fortress Of Light (+inactive guild | GWWT) by Lensor. Guild:Lukov Royal Guard (+inactive guild | GWWT) by Wandering Traveler. Why does the Wiki Community find these pages useful to keep? Clearly, a same player cannot lead 5 guilds at the same time. I wander which would be the percentage of total guild-100% and non-existing guilds-???% that the Wiki could reduce its listing. Considering the tools we have at our disposal like for example the HoM Calculator, any player can type somebody else's character name to check their progress. Couldn't a feature alike show others the status of a guild? Like: No results found (guild doesn't exist anymore). Last login of their current leader and the present time number of Officers? Yoshida Keiji talk 13:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Bots Alright, now I have enough time to check into this without any pressure. Delving into unknown territory, I am awared of the existance of the User:Abuse filter, Wikibots Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Editing bots and its policy Guild Wars Wiki:Bots. Since we are one month away from GW2 release, it won't seem much usefull here but if ANet still decided to implement the same Guild space feature. We could consider the use of a bot to: Automatically un-categorize guild pages without any 3 months period maintenace, so that the "inactive" are not displayed under Categories listings. According to GWW:BOTS the last time a bot was activated for guild page maintenace was in 2009 June 1st by User:Wynthyst who has been at it repeatedly and had her own User:Wynthyst/Sandbox/Guild pages to be moved for it. Useful link: Guild Wars Wiki:List of inactive guilds. Yoshida Keiji talk 08:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Very few people are aware of the wiki-bots or how they can be used to streamline repetitive work (and often, some of our bookkeeping cannot be done by bots, alas). We could create a bot that automatically tagged pages that hadn't been edited within three months with {{inactive guild}} and automatically delete guild articles that hadn't been edited for 12 months (or whatever time period) since a bot had applied the tag. I'm not sure whether this is worth the effort. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Archiving First, thank you very much for all the archiving of talk pages that you have been doing. I always mean to get around to it, but something else always comes up. Second: the long standing practice has been to name the archives 1, 2, 3, 4... but I find this makes it hard to research. So, when I move stuff, I still call the articles Archive 01, 02, etc... but in the archive box, I try to specify the dates (you can see my talk your page for an example). There's no policy about how to do it, so it's entirely up to you if you prefer the easier-now method (what everyone does) or the easier-later method (what I do). Thanks again for doing the work. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Ok, I feel particularly dumb, since if I had looked at your talk page first, I would have realized you already do this. In that case, I'll just leave you with my thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC) LOL at Edit Conflict in my own talk page. Yes, I totally agree dating links is better than numbering. I will proceed this way from now on, atm I'm just giving priority to catch up with Recent Changes since I have fallen behind due to real life. Yoshida Keiji talk 07:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Ignoring spam in RC There's a trick to ignoring some types of RC spamming: typically ,the changes take place in one wiki-space (not several). On the RC page, choose that namespace and then tick the invert selection box. You will see all RCs, except those in the spammed arena. For example, I use this when someone is setting up their character pages (even with show preview, a user with 12 toons using Wyn's templates is going to make 20-30 changes easy). It also is helpful when someone is fixing a template or updating guilds within an alliance or... Hope it's useful for you. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Great tip, thanks. I just used Invert Selection with User and could find the edit in Urgoz's Warren/Map...now a new question comes up... Why we can only use one option instead of two? That would significantly reduce the list of retarded spamming. Yoshida Keiji talk 08:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC) YW. Because, alas, that's how MediaWiki wrote the RC filter. You could use DPL to create your own list of recent changes. (In fact, you could probably construct to ignore edits from a specific person; you definitely could ignore edits to certain pages or to pages with specific words, e.g. ignore edits to pages that begin, User:Tennessee Ernie Ford.) On GWiki, Dr Ishmael set things up so that a registered use filter out changes by one specific user. This was at a time when several people were adding interwiki cues to autolink articles to the corresponding French and German versions of GWiki (since there never has been official versions of GWW for foreign languages, as there are for GW2W). That's a clear example of RC spamming that should be encouraged and is going to interfere with everyone's ability to find specific changes. (And one of the reasons why I don't care if people spam RC for other reasons.) Also: do you use your watchlist? – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, within my account's Preferences Watchlist tab, I have the last three options ticked-up. Add pages I edit to my watchlist. Add pages I move to my watchlist. Add pages I create to my watchlist. Can you link me Dr Ishmael work so I can create (duplicate) my own Recent Changes? I would love to have a Special page: Recent Changes without retarded spamming. Yoshida Keiji talk 10:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I'm wondering if you use "enhanced recent changes"; found under the "Recent Changes" tab under the Preferences settings? File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 11:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC) No, I don't use "enhanced RC", I just tried it to see how it would look and... ewww... Yoshida Keiji talk 11:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC) "Can you link me Dr Ishmael..." Sure, let me Google that for you. You'll have to chat with him, because the actual code is fairly complex. (Although it might be possible for you to copy that last bit of stuff into your personal common.js page — I don't remember if it's specific to GuildWiki or if it will work on any MediaWiki site – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC) LOL that code is waaay... complex for me. Either the Wiki Community itself helps bookkeepers or bookkeeper don't worry thaaat much. I'm here, present and accounted. Can't we just have a Special:Recent Changes version 2.0 that removes Feedbacks retarded spamming and Userpages retarded spamming so that we can deal with Game content better? Yoshida Keiji talk 16:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC) RC is a function of MediaWiki; it's not something that GW2W or GWW controls directly (aside from clever ppls like Ish creating clever widgets). (Incidentally, there's really just a tiny number of situations in which RC is affected. It's not spam, it's almost entirely people learning how things work or doing something that cannot be done without trial and error. It's annoying, but it's never intentional and it's never ...retarded. Between invert selection and the watchlist, I honest never have a problem ignoring the occasional issue.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Reset indent You'll probably have a heart attack when you see recent changes </3 File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 01:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I think my expressions lost their meaning through translation, I consider "retarded spamming" when 10+ edits are done on the same page. Not 10 different edits on different pages, as 1 edit per 10 pages. Yoshida Keiji talk 02:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC) As mentioned above, there are lots of circumstances when it's proper (and/or required) to edit the same page multiple times. (However, there are plenty of people who have trouble understanding the use of "preview," but it's so rare I'm not bothered by it.) That said, I consider the use of "retarded" as an insult as poor word choice (some word argue it's insulting to people with special needs; others might argue that it's insulting to the person whose actions are being attacked). (Of course, I'm pretty sure from working with you for a while that you don't intend the other implications.) I prefer just to avoid such terms, because they detract from the point I'm trying to make rather than add to it. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Templates You were as busy as I was! But a little note, there are some "magic words" for templates and categories which are shown on mediawiki - these are templates that can't be created since they would disrupt the built-in template. Examples: __NOINDEX__ - behaviour switch added to pages so that they do not show up in web search engines such as Google. {{PAGENAME}} - displays the name of the current page. (see [1]) {{CURRENTMONTH}} - displays the current month. (see [2]) I've reverted one instance of your removal of the PAGENAME template. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 09:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC) My edit summary linking failed and mislead, but was fixed. I didn't knew about Magic Words, I can recognise some of the listed. Thanks for the heads up. Yoshida Keiji talk 13:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)