User talk:Mortimer shank
From The Urban Dead Wiki
What does the "mark article as patrolled" link do? � ceejayoz ★ .com 21:36, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
I don't know exactly. I imagine it has something to do with watching it. Where did you see it?
It's under the "current page" text when comparing two versions of a page, for one. I think it's like watching, but it lets others know that you're watching it so the can focus on more important things. --Raelin 21:53, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
- I've never seen it on a MediaWiki wiki before, so I wonder if it's something new or hacked into this install only. It doesn't seem to exist on my (couple month old) install. � ceejayoz ★ .com 02:37, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)
- Interesting, if a bit strange - it's a way to mark edits as 'having been checked by someone'. The red exclamation marks on the Recent Changes list signify edits that haven't been checked. I wondered what they were for. --Spiro 11:55, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)
- It's so that you can tell which pages have been "patrolled" by someone, and which ones should still be reviewed. You can have a group of "patrollers" who are marking off each change as patrolled, to ensure some kind of consistency and quality. This group can also just be everyone, or can be configured to be only Administrators. In practice, it means that the group of people who want to check pages have one system they can use, without worrying about communicating the fact somewhere else. (It's not on by default.)
- If people wanted to, "we" could just start marking pages as patrolled when you've verified that the change seems "good" (i.e. at least not vandalism, etc.). Then, helpful people know to look for unpatrolled pages (the ones with !) --John 04:42, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
- Interesting, if a bit strange - it's a way to mark edits as 'having been checked by someone'. The red exclamation marks on the Recent Changes list signify edits that haven't been checked. I wondered what they were for. --Spiro 11:55, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)
Mortimer, you post some weird shit at times. I shouldn't get my panties in a bunch over it, but it'd be nice if you could add some justification, occasionally, for some of the weirder bits.--Milo 03:34, 6 Oct 2005 (BST)
- You mean the first version of the Omnipotence page? I accidentally pushed the save button before I was done.--mortimer shank 03:42, 6 Oct 2005 (BST)
- Sadly, the relevance of your metaphor still lies beyond the reach of my meagre mental capabilities. Zombies are hardly "omnipotent", at least in the sense I'm familiar with (Omni=all, potent=powerful.)--Milo 03:55, 6 Oct 2005 (BST)
- A majority of suggestions are bad because they exhibit a tendency toward omnipotence. Actual omnipotence is a limiting case, not (usually) achieved in practice, since it's obviously bad. I haven't been sure how to exposit on this whole topic, but I know I needed that page. As to your particular point, most omnipotent tendencies have been suggested for humans, but that's changing.--mortimer shank 17:44, 6 Oct 2005 (BST)
- Sadly, the relevance of your metaphor still lies beyond the reach of my meagre mental capabilities. Zombies are hardly "omnipotent", at least in the sense I'm familiar with (Omni=all, potent=powerful.)--Milo 03:55, 6 Oct 2005 (BST)
