User talk:TheRealLurlock/2008 01

Prev: December

Up: User • Talk • Cookies

Next: February

Trendy Hippo

I went to Trendy Hippo and read "The Book" and the forums have not been altered by anyone for atleast 8 months, if you would be so kind to tell us why this is and (IMHO) alter your user page to note this fact. Helper Unknown

I had a MAJOR problem with spam-bots on the site. I had to freeze out all new members in order to avoid having to delete hundreds of (mostly offensive) spams per day. I am still trying to get my webmaster to upgrade the forum software in order to be more spam-proof, but he's a little hard to get a hold of, and I've been involved in other projects. As I said, the site is not ready to go public, and that's the major reason why. Hopefully I'll be able to get over these issues at some point, or I may give up and just create a new site on my own (though I'm not all that knowledgeable about the nitty-gritty parts of doing that - maybe I'll have to teach myself.) Also, right now I'm more concerned with the fact that I'm currently unemployed, so finding a paying job is my first priority. Thanks for your interest, I'll be sure to post an announcement on my user page whenever I get the site up and running properly again. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 00:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks!:) Helper Unknown

Edittools and Namespace Shortcuts

Umm, I'm just wondering why you wanted to use the template namespace shortcuts at Mediawiki:Edittools? My impression was that namespace shortcuts like Template:MW are there solely to reduce the amount of typing required by editors when creating new content. However, there is no "typing" required when using the Edittools, so the rationale of reducing the required typing vanishes. Which means that as far as I can tell all you're left with is the disadvantages of the template shortcuts. In particular, the fact that you're now requiring the server to do a considerable amount of extra processing every time the page is saved just to take care of translating the template into an actual link. I'd really prefer not to add that burden to the server, especially when we already have many pages that over-tax the server template-wise and the fact that the server is desperately overworked CPU-wise. We've got tons of disk space to store a few extra characters. We don't have tons of CPU cycles to burn on unnecessary processing. That's my opinion of our current status, at least. --Nephele^Talk 01:46, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, it was more of an effort to shrink down that big Wiki markup box at the bottom of the edit window. I mean, now that I think of it, all of the namespace links in there can probably be safely removed at this point, since the transparent namespaces feature has made them mostly redundant. We can leave Category up, and maybe UESPWiki, but the others, well, you're not likely to need them any more, since you can just use [[]]'s for the vast majority of links, or the Template:MW etc. templates for the few exceptions. (Having the templates accessible from the Wiki markup box proved to be either impossible or beyond my skills, which is why I reverted it. Mediawiki pages don't seem to function the same way as normal pages when templates are involved.) Anyhow, I guess it could be put to a community vote, but I'd say that those shortcuts can now be removed entirely, since they're no longer needed. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 12:53, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I'd have no objections to clearing out some of the namespace links from the edittools box at this point. I'd suggest perhaps keeping Tamriel as well Category and UESPWiki. And, yes, Mediawiki pages are not parsed the same way as standard wiki pages ;) Also, the exact details of how each Mediawiki page is processed depends upon the page, so I don't think there are any good general rules about what will or will not work on any given page. --Nephele^Talk 14:17, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Well, not sure if you noticed, but I just made a Template:Tam, which is equivalent to the Template:MW etc. templates. (Though I left out the option to make a super-script ^Tam, because why would you need that?) I also made a Template:Cat, but that's not quite the same as it's designed to link to a category, rather than place a page into a category. So really, only UESPWiki and Category need to stay, I think. (Don't see much point in make shortcuts for those, especially since categories are more often than not covered by either a breadcrumb trail or infobox template, and UESPWiki links aren't that commonly used in other namespaces.) I'll post in the Community Portal to see if there are any serious objections to cleaning this up a bit. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 14:25, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Just for your info, I had a similar problem updating the Edittools page to incorporate a link [[Category:+|{{PAGENAME}}]] (which actually would be more useful than the one we currently have). I finally managed to include the link as [[Category:+|<nowiki>&#123;&#123;PAGENAME&#125;&#125;</nowiki>]] to trick CharInsert to not convert {{PAGENAME}} into the actual page name. The &#123; and &#125; codes represent unicode { and }. --DrPhoton 03:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Ah, that is useful, think I might try that - incidentally, what wiki was this on? Didn't know you were a wiki-Admin somewhere. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 12:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Hmm, it doesn't work - or at least doesn't show properly in preview. I get all the ugly code showing instead. (Didn't want to actually save it, because it might mess up everybody.) I wonder if there's a difference in the way this site parses some of those unusual characters? --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 12:06, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I just installed a fresh wiki on windows at work, and I certainly got it working there. Oops, I just realised that the code above didn't appear right due to the nowiki markups. It's now correct, give it another try. Use what appears on the page, not the edit box. --DrPhoton 05:07, 12 January 2008 (EST)

*, ** and ***

Please have a look at Template talk:* and give us your opinion. --DrPhoton 02:59, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Any chance I could become a Patroller?

Do you think I have any chance of becoming a patroller? I am very knowledgable about wiki's and I meet the patroller requirements... If I nominated myself would everybody oppose me? I mean, sure I would need some "Tutoring" and it seems like some other editors think I am annoying? Is that true? I am getting really good at editing and I think I would be a great patroller. I dedicate most of my time helping out UESP and I would like to help further. Thankyou. --Matthewest 18:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

New Volunteer

Hi there, just wanted to introduce myself and mention that I've uploaded some screenshots for MW articles (in case you hadn't noticed yet). Only the three Great House stonghold locations thus far, but I'd like to get some other locations and NPCs, too. I've been referring to the list of pages needing images for ideas. – KJR1012 ^{Talk Email} 05:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)