Difference between revisions of "User:Aichon/Archive 2013"

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
(Archiving through April 2013)
m (Protected "User:Aichon/Archive 2013": User Request ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 116: Line 116:
  
  
==[[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop_Archives/Vista/2006-07-01_Bureaucrat_Promotion]]==
+
==[[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop_Archives/Vista/2006-07-01_Bureaucrat_Promotion|Vista's BP]]==
 
Lots of strikethrough? --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User:Rosslessness/Safehouse_Hatred|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]  22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 
Lots of strikethrough? --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User:Rosslessness/Safehouse_Hatred|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]  22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:Yeah, it was there to begin with. I thought about trying to figure out where it was supposed to end, but then I got fed up and decided that I'll just leave it archived as it is. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:Yeah, it was there to begin with. I thought about trying to figure out where it was supposed to end, but then I got fed up and decided that I'll just leave it archived as it is. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Line 207: Line 207:
 
:::Dude, you're never going to veto ''somebody you nominated'' anyway, so it's completely irrelevant. All you nominating somebody does is say that you're content that they're a good enough candidate and aren't going to veto them. If you change your mind in the process of the bid then the fact that you originally nominated them is completely irrelevant. If you were never going to change your mind anyway then it doesn't matter because you wouldn't have vetoed anyway. This is in no way a big deal and crats should feel free to do whatever they want.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 20:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::Dude, you're never going to veto ''somebody you nominated'' anyway, so it's completely irrelevant. All you nominating somebody does is say that you're content that they're a good enough candidate and aren't going to veto them. If you change your mind in the process of the bid then the fact that you originally nominated them is completely irrelevant. If you were never going to change your mind anyway then it doesn't matter because you wouldn't have vetoed anyway. This is in no way a big deal and crats should feel free to do whatever they want.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 20:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::I'm with you on the irrelevancy topic, which was more or less what I concluded in the wall of text above. The followup topic is whether or not nominating is the best choice to take. I.e. Is the fact that it's known by many to be irrelevant sufficient to outweigh the concerns that the 'crat will ''appear'' more partial by having stated their opinion so publicly? {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::I'm with you on the irrelevancy topic, which was more or less what I concluded in the wall of text above. The followup topic is whether or not nominating is the best choice to take. I.e. Is the fact that it's known by many to be irrelevant sufficient to outweigh the concerns that the 'crat will ''appear'' more partial by having stated their opinion so publicly? {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:I'm still processing most of that, but I think I'm of the belief that full disclosure occurred when you posted the nomination, because that indicated that you had a biased stance. To take a counterpoint example, in [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Peralta|Peralta's bid]] last year, you revealed after the bid had been withdrawn that you were in favor of Peralta's elevation to sysophood (in the post "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly"). While I don't doubt that your personal opinion in that case had no bearing on how you would have processed it had the nomination not been withdrawn, I think it could be argued that by not revealing your personal preference you were not giving the community full disclosure. So I guess I'm saying that I think you did the right thing in nominating me, because if you hadn't, your strong bias would have gone undiscovered until the end (or not at all). I don't know; it's really late at night.
+
:I'm still processing most of that, but I think I'm of the belief that full disclosure occurred when you posted the nomination, because that indicated that you had a biased stance. To take a counterpoint example, in [[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Peralta/2012-11-19 Promotion|Peralta's bid]] last year, you revealed after the bid had been withdrawn that you were in favor of Peralta's elevation to sysophood (in the post "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly"). While I don't doubt that your personal opinion in that case had no bearing on how you would have processed it had the nomination not been withdrawn, I think it could be argued that by not revealing your personal preference you were not giving the community full disclosure. So I guess I'm saying that I think you did the right thing in nominating me, because if you hadn't, your strong bias would have gone undiscovered until the end (or not at all). I don't know; it's really late at night.
 
:That aside, I do think I would prefer if SZ processed the bid, to avoid a kerfuffle among the community. I would still expect you to add your input, as I think you can still make a good judgement call about which way the community is pointing, if not necessarily about how you yourself are pointing. I guess that's what I vote for when I vote for a bureaucrat; someone who can be a successful barometer of the community, while minimizing the influences of his own biases. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 06:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:That aside, I do think I would prefer if SZ processed the bid, to avoid a kerfuffle among the community. I would still expect you to add your input, as I think you can still make a good judgement call about which way the community is pointing, if not necessarily about how you yourself are pointing. I guess that's what I vote for when I vote for a bureaucrat; someone who can be a successful barometer of the community, while minimizing the influences of his own biases. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 06:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::Well, disclosure was unnecessary there since there was no reason for there to be a perception of wrongdoing on my part (i.e. no conflicts of interest). Unless you want to make an argument that transparency is ''always'' necessary, disclosure for its own sake is not always desirable. Besides which, even if you do think that disclosure is good for its own sake, I could have done it in a different way that didn't lead to a conflict of interest, such as by letting someone else nominate you and then merely vouch for you afterwards.  That would have meant no conflict of interest while still having full disclosure. Would that have been a better way to handle things? I think so, though I don't (yet) regret having done what I did. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::Well, disclosure was unnecessary there since there was no reason for there to be a perception of wrongdoing on my part (i.e. no conflicts of interest). Unless you want to make an argument that transparency is ''always'' necessary, disclosure for its own sake is not always desirable. Besides which, even if you do think that disclosure is good for its own sake, I could have done it in a different way that didn't lead to a conflict of interest, such as by letting someone else nominate you and then merely vouch for you afterwards.  That would have meant no conflict of interest while still having full disclosure. Would that have been a better way to handle things? I think so, though I don't (yet) regret having done what I did. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Line 377: Line 377:
 
:::Generally we'd call this bid a very good one for someone looking for promotion. When the worst thing we can say is we don't know if they really want to be sysop, well the bid itself answers that when it's self filed and we have enough venues available should Kirsty not actually want the position. We now have A/RE if Kirsty proves to be inactive, and the balance of the sysop team right now is weighty with experience so any potential damage is extremely limited. Don't refuse this on the basis of it being contested though, it's really not. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:20, 13 April 2013 (BST)
 
:::Generally we'd call this bid a very good one for someone looking for promotion. When the worst thing we can say is we don't know if they really want to be sysop, well the bid itself answers that when it's self filed and we have enough venues available should Kirsty not actually want the position. We now have A/RE if Kirsty proves to be inactive, and the balance of the sysop team right now is weighty with experience so any potential damage is extremely limited. Don't refuse this on the basis of it being contested though, it's really not. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:20, 13 April 2013 (BST)
 
::::Officially, the number of sys-ops plays no role in the decision. Inofficially, I am aware of us running out of suitable candidates, which is why I look relatively favourable at this application - just 2 or 3 years ago, an applicant like Kirsty would likely have been instantly shot down. That being said, I still don't see Kirsty as being at the point where she is ready, nor do I see a clear-cut indication by the community in favour of the bid. (As for Harrison, he's running with Kirsty in CK and has been for a long time running with her in Cobra, so personal dislike is one of the last motives I would suspect behind the against.) --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 18:40, 13 April 2013 (BST)
 
::::Officially, the number of sys-ops plays no role in the decision. Inofficially, I am aware of us running out of suitable candidates, which is why I look relatively favourable at this application - just 2 or 3 years ago, an applicant like Kirsty would likely have been instantly shot down. That being said, I still don't see Kirsty as being at the point where she is ready, nor do I see a clear-cut indication by the community in favour of the bid. (As for Harrison, he's running with Kirsty in CK and has been for a long time running with her in Cobra, so personal dislike is one of the last motives I would suspect behind the against.) --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 18:40, 13 April 2013 (BST)
:::::There's a more clear cut consensus here than [[:Category:Successful_Promotions_Candidacies|most of the sysops we've promoted have gotten]] and the team size needs most certainly should play a role in the decision when there's so few viable candidates. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:49, 13 April 2013 (BST)
+
:::::There's a more clear cut consensus here than [[:Category:Successful Promotion Archives|most of the sysops we've promoted have gotten]] and the team size needs most certainly should play a role in the decision when there's so few viable candidates. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:49, 13 April 2013 (BST)
 
::::::I know that ''I'm'' not refusing on the basis that it's contested. As we all know, these candidacies are not determined by votes, so as I'm looking through the people that expressed opinions, I'm looking at the reasons they provided, and what I'm seeing is that while there is some support, it's not particularly strong except on the point that Kirsty has a unique opinion to offer. Since that's only one out of the many things we expect in a candidate, and I haven't personally seen evidence of proficiency in those other areas. I feel that the decision is an obvious one, and I'm actually surprised that you disagree.
 
::::::I know that ''I'm'' not refusing on the basis that it's contested. As we all know, these candidacies are not determined by votes, so as I'm looking through the people that expressed opinions, I'm looking at the reasons they provided, and what I'm seeing is that while there is some support, it's not particularly strong except on the point that Kirsty has a unique opinion to offer. Since that's only one out of the many things we expect in a candidate, and I haven't personally seen evidence of proficiency in those other areas. I feel that the decision is an obvious one, and I'm actually surprised that you disagree.
 
::::::As for needing more sysops, as Spider said, that doesn't play into the decision, but even if it did, I disagree quite a bit. As [[User:Aichon/Other/So_you_want_to_be_a_sysop%3F#Who_gets_to_be_a_sysop.3F|I've said elsewhere]], I don't think the wiki needs many active sysops in order to function, and that's even more true today than when I wrote that a few years back (with no snark and no sarcasm, I'm actually curious why you think we need more). The idea that we should promote people first and ask questions later using A/RE or A/M is a poor rational to use, especially so when the candidate's strength is in helping with drama, which is something we've been having less and less of in recent years. And regarding the number of sysops we have, my demotion request was withdrawn prior to your posting here, and I don't plan to request one again until about the time that Kirsty will be ready for a promotion if he stays on track, meaning that everything should work out just fine by your measure. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 19:01, 13 April 2013 (BST)
 
::::::As for needing more sysops, as Spider said, that doesn't play into the decision, but even if it did, I disagree quite a bit. As [[User:Aichon/Other/So_you_want_to_be_a_sysop%3F#Who_gets_to_be_a_sysop.3F|I've said elsewhere]], I don't think the wiki needs many active sysops in order to function, and that's even more true today than when I wrote that a few years back (with no snark and no sarcasm, I'm actually curious why you think we need more). The idea that we should promote people first and ask questions later using A/RE or A/M is a poor rational to use, especially so when the candidate's strength is in helping with drama, which is something we've been having less and less of in recent years. And regarding the number of sysops we have, my demotion request was withdrawn prior to your posting here, and I don't plan to request one again until about the time that Kirsty will be ready for a promotion if he stays on track, meaning that everything should work out just fine by your measure. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 19:01, 13 April 2013 (BST)
Line 457: Line 457:
 
:: That answers my question, thanks [[User:CyberOpposition|-.-]] 16:37, 23 April 2013 (BST)
 
:: That answers my question, thanks [[User:CyberOpposition|-.-]] 16:37, 23 April 2013 (BST)
 
::a) ''Throes''. You mean death ''throes''. [[image:nugget.gif]]<br/> b) Even the Mona Lisa's falling apart.<br/> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 11:08, 4 May 2013 (BST)
 
::a) ''Throes''. You mean death ''throes''. [[image:nugget.gif]]<br/> b) Even the Mona Lisa's falling apart.<br/> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 11:08, 4 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
==OMGOMGOMG==
 +
I accidentally did something to the suggestion portal and don't know how to fix it :X [[User:CyberOpposition|-.-]] 03:57, 4 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:Looks like you got it sorted out. Long story short, don't edit the line that says you should edit below that line. It looks like you were replacing (perhaps automatically via some sort of automatic text replacement?) the "--" with a "—" in that line. Since that line is an HTML comment, removing the -- caused it to behave as if the comment never ended, meaning that the rest of the page was treated as being in the HTML comment. I.e. It was hidden from view. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 10:32, 4 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:If in doubt, revert or undo will usually fix all but the most egregious of fuck-ups. One of the best features of a wiki. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 11:10, 4 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::Also, that's why you should always preview your changes first, rather than saving immediately. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 16:33, 4 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== My suggestion ==
 +
i just wanted to know if i could re-add my Radio Recognition suggestion to the voting section? [[User:Paynetrain|<font size="4" face="Matura MT Script Capitals" color="red">Payne</font>]][[User talk:Paynetrain|<font size="4" face="Matura MT Script Capitals" color="blue">Train</font>]]<sup>'''([[NWO]]/[[FU]])'''</sup> 17:27, 4 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:My [[User_talk:Aichon#Re-adding_my_suggestion|previous answer]] to this question still applies. :P {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 17:41, 4 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::I don't remember asking this to you before...hmmm....thanks anyway for then and now[[User:Paynetrain|<font size="4" face="Matura MT Script Capitals" color="red">Payne</font>]][[User talk:Paynetrain|<font size="4" face="Matura MT Script Capitals" color="blue">Train</font>]]<sup>'''([[NWO]]/[[FU]])'''</sup> 18:13, 4 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:::No prob. :) {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 04:21, 5 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Suggestions==
 +
I just wanna know if that one guy can add his suggestion again. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 01:37, 6 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:Third time's the charm, amirite? {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 01:40, 6 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Question ==
 +
Can I place a question I have about suggestions here? {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 01:45, 6 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:Only once. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 05:06, 6 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Protecting cycled suggestions ==
 +
Do you want to share any amount of copper money on Ross' RE, or should I take it to the new crat tomorrow? --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 18:28, 10 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:Best that you handle it, since I'm on the way out the door of Bureaucracy. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 18:37, 10 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== ... ==
 +
aichon. i would like to discuss with you. please go to here. tinyurl.com/pggchat. i wait for you! --[[User:Anja Arnheim|Anja Arnheim]] 00:20, 13 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:For posterity, the issue was a minor one with image caching that was pretty easily addressed. Also, tinyurl.com/pggchat is just a link to Mibbit for #PGG on the NexusWar IRC, for everyone else's reference. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 00:48, 13 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
==Something else==
 +
Edit my talk whenever you're about. --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User:Rosslessness/Safehouse_Hatred|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]  16:56, 21 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:I responded to your e-mail a second time with more information, since we keep missing each other. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:02, 22 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
== Random selection ==
 +
Hi, you wouldn't happen to know how I could make a template select a random item from a list every day, would you? {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 20:24, 22 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:Random? No. A different one each day in a cycle? Quite possible. We do something like that with {{tl|SimpleFACycle}} for the Featured Articles on the main page of the wiki, though it changes them out weekly, rather than daily, and you have to set up the cycle in advance. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:01, 22 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::Well, a preset cycle should be quite enough, and I think weekly should be sufficient for my purposes. Thanks, I'll look into it! {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 21:06, 22 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:::You can modify that weekly one to be daily by just swapping out the weekly magic word at the top for a daily one. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:07, 22 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::::I know, but contrary to the first thing I set up on the wiki, I'm going to try and keep the scale of this project manageable... for now. {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 21:10, 22 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::::Sorry for bothering you again, but I've been out of wiki-editing for longer than I care to admit: how do I pull info like status, comment, etc. from the building statuses again? {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 21:51, 22 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::Basically, you make your own template to grab the parts you want. For instance, you should check the code for {{tl|TRP Status}} to see how it grabs each of the variables it uses from [[User:DangerReport/The_Latrobe_Building|a danger report]] in order to do something like this: {{User:DangerReport/The_Latrobe_Building|template=TRP Status}}
 +
:::::Note that you're actually including the danger report itself, but that you pass it the template you want it to use as a variable. Rather convoluted, but I believe it's the only way to grab the information one piece at a time, so I'm glad it exists. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:33, 22 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::Awesome, thanks! Question number 3: can I sepparate a user's name and date from his signature, when pulling that info from a sitrep? {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 19:53, 23 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::Not that I'm aware of, since we lack any of the parser extensions on this wiki. I'm also unaware of any way to merely grab the date that the page was edited, in case you were thinking along those lines. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 20:07, 23 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::::Hmmm, that makes my idea a bit less attractive than I had hoped. {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 20:12, 23 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::::Actually, I'll take that back. Look over some of the [[Help:Magic_Words#Technical_metadata|relevant magic words]] and see if any of them might work for you. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 20:19, 23 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::::::One of the revision-tags could do the trick. And I can just minimize the <nowiki>{{{user}}}</nowiki>, which should be ok. Thanks, you once again prove that you're a great help, be it with a giant map or a simple idea :) {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 20:24, 23 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::::::I see where you're going with it, and sadly I have to inform you that the revision tags will always give you the revision date of the page (or template) it displayed on. I tried a similar project once, and ran into the same problem. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)</sub>
 +
::::::::::::What if I define the tag "date" in the sitrep template, like the name, comment and user are defined?
 +
::::::::::::For whom it may concern: this is a first step towards a new template and page for all suburbs. {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 21:33, 23 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::::::::Yeah if I remeber correctly, I tried that on on danger report template and it still displayed the wrong date when transcluded. Plus, ya 10,000 Danger Report templates. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>21:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)</sub>
 +
:::::::::::::You might be able to do something like have <nowiki>sub{{sometemplate that has "st:{{REVISIONDATE}}" in it}}</nowiki> in order to effectively subst the REVISIONDATE in order to get the date of a particular template in the chain of templates. We've done similar stuff to allow automatic signatures with templates, as I recall. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:05, 23 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::::::::@Vapor: Why don't the Danger Reports use one template for their content? Also, there are "only" about 5 000, since streets and other empty lots don't have one ;) {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 15:25, 25 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::::::::Well the User:DangerReport pages technically are the templates. That's where the data for each location block is stored, and then various other templates are used to pull and display the data in different ways. Aichon's suggestion is a nifty little trick and it's possible that could work I think. The trick would be adding a variable to all of the location block pages with revision date magic words subst'd in using Aichon's trick. Then it's just a simple matter of creating one template that pulls that data. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>17:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)</sub>
 +
::::::::::::::To be honest, I'm not convinced at all that my idea would work, since subst-ing works with some strange rules, as I recall. But it's the only idea I had to do this sort of thing. If it doesn't work, I'd have absolutely no idea at all, other than having people separately sign and date each of their edits to the danger reports. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 18:42, 25 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::::::::::Even if it was doable in a reasonable manner why would you want to ever transclude a single template big enough to hold all the suburbs on every page to only call a 100th or 10,000th of the template's content. That's just irresponsible really and would cause more issues than it could ever solve. Additionally I may be horribly misunderstanding what you guys are trying to do but if I can get an idea I could probably be useful in figuring out how to do it. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:46, 25 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::::::::::Well, I'm trying to develop some elements for the suburb pages to make them more appealing, and the idea behind this one would be to make sure that if you load a suburb page, it'll display different information than it did yesterday (or maybe even an hour ago). In this case: a rotating system (as described at the beginning of this thread with the FA-cycle) that displays the current situation of a certain building in the suburb with some additional flavor text and background information. In stead of just putting the danger reports themselves there, I was thinking along the lines of something like this:
 +
'''Building Status Feed'''
 +
Currently, [[Caiger Mall]] is ''in ruins''. ''
 +
"All four corners are ruined and nothing living or undead can be spotted inside."'', reported ''{{User:Peralta/Signature}}'' on ''09:51, 26 May 2013 (BST)''.
 +
Caiger Mall is best known as the site of [[Caiger_Mall#History_of_Caiger_Mall|several big sieges]].
 +
{{User:Peralta/Signature}} 09:51, 26 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
==HARMANBARGARZ==
 +
:Orison Flynt said "Oh, hey, Jackson! We actually just ran across each other on the wiki earlier today. Anyway, sorry, but I'd prefer to keep my brain while on this alt. And I'm a bit busy to engage in the activity you've suggested, I'm afraid. Raincheck?" (8 seconds ago)
 +
 +
You say "ARRRH!!!! MANBAG!"
 +
 +
Next time! --[[User:Jackson 5|Jackson 5]] 06:00, 30 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:Until then. ;) {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 06:04, 30 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Danger Map on BB4 page ==
 +
What would that issue be exactly? The lag? {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 15:01, 31 May 2013 (BST)
 +
:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Bash_4&diff=2074648&oldid=2074644 These]. Basically, by itself, something like the suburb level danger map is not particularly useful to most Bashers (particularly when it's presented without a key or context for understanding what it's supposed to represent), nor is it functional, nor is it aesthetically pleasing. I considered tweaking the custom barricade plan trick I did for the MOB Locator for use on the BB4 pages, but that involves having to c/p barricade plans for each suburb we visit, and I'm really trying to automate things as much as possible, so I decided against doing it. If we want to include the danger map for the suburb, I think we'll need new templates, frankly put, that can be clicked on to be edited, can have custom colors specified, will have building names present, and can be switched out automagically somehow. It's a lot to ask, but I'm actually giving some thought to how something like that might be possible, since I'd like to work them in if I can figure out a good way to do so. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:13, 31 May 2013 (BST)
 +
::I've been thinking about uniting as many of the safety and status tools as possible (the radio broadcasts, danger reports, etc.) and I'm pretty sure we should start cleaning out the wiki ''a lot'' one of these days (especially when it comes to template calls).
 +
::To illustrate: [[User:DangerReport/The Blackmore Building]] has dozens of pages that link to it, and I'm pretty sure we could shorten that list quite a bit. It's an arduous task, I know, but it would be a rewarding one... {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 15:20, 31 May 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Well met ==
 +
Thank you very much for your input.
 +
I shall reply on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Concerned%27Citizen#Regarding_Danger_Reports] asap,for there is an entirely good reason for that exact specific edit.
 +
 +
please,if maybe you could either reply here or write on the '' '''Groups''' '' topic I've started on the talk page.
 +
 +
If you'd have the pleasure means and time in guiding me on my way of putting up a new group's page;I've been reading the guides here but they haven't been that helpful.
 +
 +
Also,I've noticed you have a character with the BB4.I did play a zombie character at first but due to the fact it has been revived while living the life of a zombie -haha,I let it be;was wondering if there might be any group I could join this zombie character of mine to the BB4 playing it completely independent of my survivor's char.
 +
 +
Thank you so much for stopping by and having your input.Hope in hearing from you soon.
 +
 +
Edit: have read almost anything there was to read on your page and some of the things that caught my attention where the 'image stamps' saying things like 'supports humor' and so on! Thus,pleased in meeting,''well met''. {{unsigned|Concerned'Citizen|01:42, 5 June 2013}}
 +
:Regarding groups, what information are you looking for, exactly? I understand that you're trying to make one, but I'll need to know where to start if I'm to offer any advice or answer any questions. I've made a few group pages over the years (e.g. [[Soldiers of Crossman]], [[Big Bash 3]], and [[Big Bash 4]] are all ones I made), so I at least have a little experience in this area. ;)
 +
:As for BB4, yup, you could say that I'm involved with it. If you'd like to join BB4, you are VERY welcome to do so. We welcome all zombies, new or old, and we'll even help feed your zombie so that he can earn some levels and skills. BB4 only lasts for a few months before it goes away (it's been three years since the last Big Bash), so I definitely would recommend joining it while it's around, since they don't happen often. Also, it's worth pointing out that BB4 is an event and that entire groups come to it as well, so we actually have [[The Nurglings]] joining BB4 as a group. If you like BB4 and like what you see of The Nurglings, you may want to look into joining them, since they're a newer zombie group that's making a name for themselves.
 +
:Otherwise, the traditional recommendations for zombies groups are the three remaining hordes: the [[Militant Order of Barhah]], [[The Ridleybank Resistance Front]], and the [[Feral Undead]]. The MOB tends to be very structured and focused on strike teams and efficiency (one of my other characters is in the MOB), the RRF is a bit more flexible and has everything from death cultists to strike teams and ferals, and FU tends to be more of a free-for-all with minimal leadership. All three of them are great groups, and you should go with whichever idea appeals to you the most, with MOB being super structured, FU being open-ended, and RRF being a bit more in-between.
 +
:There are a number of smaller groups as well, but I have less experience with them, I'm afraid. You may want to check the [[:Category:Recruitment|Groups]] page for ones that are recruiting. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 02:13, 5 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::Most wonderful in reading.
 +
::This urban dead sure got exciting as of joining the wiki,which I strongly recommend to anyone out there who really wishes to have their game on,so to speak.
 +
::In regards to group would appreciate in being guided regarding : group page creation; how to load art,pictures,images videos; how to create a layout,something of a template with titles linking to new wiki pages opening up-which I've noticed on several wiki-user's pages.
 +
::For starters,would be just fine in being able to have a blank group's page adding group's name,description,purposes/goals and a neat banner on tops,though I don't do them-lacking the software for it as well as not being quite experienced with IT art-work.
 +
::As for groups,best suited for a zombie,in my own opinion,would be something such as the MOB.Where do I sign? :D Well,I should be able to get my zombie on,if he's still alive - haha (which I'm sure he is :D them rascals seem to NEVER die oO)
 +
::almost forgot to sign the article just now,haha :P um,here it goes [[User:Concerned&#39;Citizen|Concerned&#39;Citizen]] 04:37, 5 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::If you check the "toolbox" section on the left side of the page, you should see a link for [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you want to upload images, just click on it and then follow the instructions. I'm afraid we can't upload videos or audio files to this wiki, however. Just images.
 +
:::As for a layout, you'll mostly have to do that on your own, or else find someone who is willing to do it for you, since there aren't templates or other resources that you can use. One idea you might try is to find pages that you like and then look at their code to see how they did it (I would not suggest starting with the group pages I created that I linked, since the code for them is rather complex). Regarding the "template with titles linking to new wiki pages", could you point me to an example? I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean.
 +
:::Anyway, you'll have to figure out how to make your own banner, since I'm not very good with images either, but for making a page, all you need to do is go to the page and then start editing. For instance, you could create a group at [[Lorem Ipsum]] by following that link and merely editing the page. You can easily add in the information you've talked about, such as their name, description, goals, etc.. You may also want to look at the {{tl|Groupbox}} template, since many wiki novices use it to get that information onto their group page quickly and easily.
 +
:::Finally, for applying to MOB, you'll need to sign up for an account on barhah.com and follow the instructions in [http://www.barhah.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=4598 this message board topic]. You may also want to look over the [[MOB]] page here on the wiki, as well as the [[MOB Locator]] page. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 05:01, 5 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::Much appreciated.
 +
::::I've made an account with the Barhah Dot Com since of yesterday after reading around the wiki and wishing to join BB4 as a zombie novice.
 +
::::Have not received a confirmation e-mail;though I haven't got to checking my e-mail as of yesterday.
 +
::::The wiki and all the information coming my way on reading is keeping my undivided attention here.
 +
::::regarding the layout and functionality of links: having a template showing contents; clicking on a title would open up a new page which may contain further data. Hope that I managed to explain this well.
 +
::::Example : Template - A B C D E F G ... etc. Clicking on either would open up a new page which could have any data there.
 +
::::That would be it.
 +
::::[[User:Concerned&#39;Citizen|Concerned&#39;Citizen]]
 +
:::::Just make each of A B C D E F G into links to pages (typically you'll want to make them subpages of your group, like [[Lorem Ipsum/Members]] or [[Lorem Ipsum/Recruitment]]), then create those pages by simply editing them. That's actually how pretty much anything around here works. People just make links to pages that don't yet exist, click the links, and then make the page there. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 08:42, 5 June 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Suburb Danger Reports ==
 +
Taking my time.
 +
 +
It sure is a job in reading,searching,updating.
 +
 +
Especially reading.
 +
 +
As for updating the danger levels of suburbs it's clear that survivors could sure use an update on the info.
 +
 +
That is,in case they are interested and watching the wiki,which specifies danger levels.
 +
 +
a little something started to work on
 +
 +
safe - Break-ins rare, max 50 zombies in suburb and no zombie groups above 10.
 +
moderately dangerous - Active zombies and break-ins, but no 50+ hostile hordes.
 +
 +
It is fairly outdated,don't you think?
 +
Reporting a suburb as 'moderately dangerous' may be too late if you take the above ad literam.
 +
 +
Reason being,several mobs of around 9 zombies may be moving about,just an example; and consider there are 8 cardinal points they may close in to a building.
 +
 +
Let's say that only 4 groups of 9 zombies each will target a building coming from the major cardinal points en route for their target.
 +
 +
In this case,the danger levels of each suburb may always be set as Safe until it'd be too late ...
 +
 +
This here danger report system "" Available 'Danger' statuses:
 +
 +
safe - Break-ins rare, max 50 zombies in suburb and no zombie groups above 10.
 +
 +
moderately dangerous - Active zombies and break-ins, but no 50+ hostile hordes.
 +
 +
dangerous - Zombies inside many resource buildings; OR hostile mobs of 50+.
 +
 +
very dangerous - Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested; OR hostile zombie mobs of 150+.
 +
 +
a ghost town - At least 2/3 of the suburb's buildings either empty of Survivors or Ransacked/Ruined AND max 60 zombies in suburb and no zombie groups above 10.  ""
 +
 +
greatly advantages the zombies from any perspective anyone would look at it.
 +
 +
In that case,what play does the concepts of 'balance' and fair play stand?
 +
[[User:Concerned&#39;Citizen|Concerned&#39;Citizen]] 06:11, 5 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:Talking about your example, if those zombies are all in the suburb, then there would be 72 zombies in the suburb, which would mean it'd be classified as Moderately Dangerous or Dangerous anyway. And if they're coming from out of the suburb, then the suburb is safe until they arrive, which makes sense, since the danger isn't there yet. Seems like it's working to me. ;)
 +
:There is some leeway in the system, as well as some gray areas, but generally speaking, the easiest way to check is to go through the suburb and look for zombies gathered at resource points. If you see 10+ zombies gathering outside of a resource point, then it's probably time to call the suburb Moderately Dangerous. Also, when you're counting zombies that are roaming around, make sure you ignore the ones at revive points, since those are really survivors, not zombies, at least as far as we're concerned.
 +
:And, I don't really see how it provides an advantage to anyone, since it's simple fact reporting. Granted, the system was written back in the day when the game had quite a few more players in it, so the numbers may be larger than what makes sense for the game's current population, but that's a separate topic of discussion (and I believe it's been discussed to death elsewhere), and I am not someone who can change it all by myself. I'm simply the guy policing it at this moment. :P
 +
:Also, having suburbs incorrectly labeled as Safe is actually a disadvantage for zombies, not an advantage, since the worst thing that can happen to a horde is that they arrive expecting a buffet of food, only to find out that the suburb is actually in worse condition than the wiki said and that there's almost no one there to eat. All of the zombie leaders I've talked to over the years prefer that the map be accurate (or red, since it makes them look good), rather than green. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 06:49, 5 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::Hmm -nods-. Indeed That is one way of looking at it.
 +
:: Though,if we are to take into account that survivors which aren't well organized within groups,even those belonging to groups,may seek the shelter of a Safe suburb rather than venture in a suburb marked red/orange even light orange.
 +
:: Te simply put it,it's a matter of psychology. One example would be update and danger reports from which anyone active enough can benefit,of course.
 +
::Another example that can be interpreted in more ways than one is this broadcast "The Eley Way Police Dept in Greentown is having a party" - what would you make of it?
 +
:: [[User:Concerned&#39;Citizen|Concerned&#39;Citizen]] 06:53, 6 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::I understand the psychology, but that would be a bad strategy on the part of zombies. Specifically, if the zombie's objective is to eat more survivors, they want those survivors to be concentrated in a few areas, not spread out where they're harder to eat. Having ''more'' green suburbs will actually cause the survivors to spread out over more suburbs, meaning that there are less survivors to eat in any given suburb, which is the exact opposite of what the zombies want. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 16:01, 6 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::In regards to the example broadcast you gave, I would personally never update a building status based on solely that information. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 18:34, 6 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::From my own personal experience, I find the danger reports to be wrong good idea. Meaning that when it came out I was quite happy to participate in maintaining them too but then I realized that it was mostly used as intel and group boasting tools instead of the real, basic journalistic ideal. Because of that I stopped updating and paying attention to them and I really think my suburb is safer when flagged as red even though it is not true because troublemakers and zombies alike tend to avoid the suburb then.
 +
:::As far as psychology is involved, a psychological weapon might unfortunately be this tool greatest use... --{{User:Eagle of fire/signature}} 18:15, 9 June 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
::::Any zombie strategist worth anything would tell you that information should be public and accurate, the easier it is for the horde to follow you the easier it is to wreck stuff and it's the orgnanized groups that already have the information you need to worry about anyway. Feral/unaffiliated management is all about getting the word out and motivating people who are outside your meta-pool. As such I was always a fan of more active posting on wiki-news so long as it wasn't falsified, and drama over NPoV occasionally helped to stir up more visibility when people followed those pages. In the end it's just another way to keep things interesting and informative without spending AP, which is what really matters anyway since this is a wiki about informing and driving interest around the game.( and in this case the state of things in that game) --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:24, 9 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::Yes. That's pretty much what I think too. Thing is, this kind of public, readily available info is clearly at the advantage of the zombies rather than the survivors. As a survivor we only get there and see for ourselves, free running is not something difficult to get by. Zombies, on the other hand, have clear advantages from knowing where the next target and/or meal should be - all this at the expense of a luxurious 0 AP. --{{User:Eagle of fire/signature}} 00:02, 11 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::In that case, DangerReport updating is a fantastic thing, because without it, the game would be even more unbalanced in favor of survivors. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 01:00, 11 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::It's really not, both sides benefit massively from it and the 'zomgeveryonewilljoinagainstus' people are basically waving at a straw man. Survivors get less benefit from it only because they have more venues to do it in, such as Radios and easily understood speech. The benfit from wiki updates is really their static nature, which means that ferals and lone rangers can see where the action is and come enjoy themselves and depending on what they see while they're there it can be a great recruiting tool. Most survivors see it as a 'The zombies will overrun us' and forget that without coordinated strike times survivors have a significant advantage and a number of the players that would come from that information are most likely to play in state(Dual Nature is normative play) and having an uptick in feral population is largely a plus. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:06, 12 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::Sorry but I've been playing a pro survivor since 2005. What I'm basing myself on this matter is direct observations, evidences and experiences. I actually participated in the past in "edit wars" which, like I said before, were more like lame group boasting attempts to publicity... And they clearly were never in favor of survivors. One group take control of a building and post about it. The other group do the same. Then again. Then again. Indefinitely. But what does the survivors have to gain to know that a building is in ruin or barricaded? Not much at all even in case of a resource building. Zombies, on the other hand, know to move away and hit another target or gather at the same place again. Since there is bigger disadvantage for a fully leveled up survivor to simply keep killing zombies around pointlessly (AP, ammo, the zombies always win in the end whatever you do or try to do) why is it important for survivors to know that block X is in the hands of survivors or zombies? Really, it is not. --{{User:Eagle of fire/signature}} 00:15, 13 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::::Haven't you primarily been playing with a stationary group? At least for me, as a leader of a mobile survivor group, the danger reports can be incredibly helpful. They let us know where we need to go to work, tell us where the action is happening, and can cut down on the number of suburbs we need to scout to get an accurate sense for the condition on the ground. I know that we frequently use it in the SoC when we're trying to plan out missions, but I'd imagine that The Abandoned really don't have much need for them, since you guys know your area forwards and backwards at all times. Really, I think that's the ''actual'' distinction: the danger reports are useful for people who aren't there, regardless of if they are survivors or zombies. After all, stationary zombies in your area won't get any more benefit from the reports than you do, but a traveling horde or a mobile survivor group can use them to direct their activities. Also, as a quick aside, zombies can't know to both "move away and hit another target" or "gather at the same place again" when they see a ruined building, since those two ideas are mutually exclusive. It can only mean one or the other, since zombies don't psychically communicate or something. ;) {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 14:52, 13 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::::Quite true that The Abandoned is a stationary group. However, even then the use for the danger reports are the same if you want to cover lots of ground quickly from one side to the other. Let me tell you something: if the danger reports were actually updated in a timely manner, let's say every single hour at most, they would be very useful because you can then rely on the information. Since it is not the case and the info is unreliable, why rely on it as a survivor? We just get there and see if it is still good. Info on this regards, especially in an active suburb, can change in a matter of minutes. You're the one who have experience of a roaming group so tell me how useful that can be? As a stationary group, I persist and sign in stating that the danger reports are the most useful to me when they are showing false information. Green suburb when under heavy attack and red suburb when all's quiet is the best way to keep my suburb orderly. Which is why I ignore the reports now, because if I were to actually use it I'm sure you can guess what I'd do with them. But that would not be right in any way.
 +
:::::::::On your aside, I disagree. It is quite true that zombies can't communicate well in game, so they need to communicate out of the game. For me the most obvious way to do it would be a forum but then you only communicate with your own group. Using the danger reports allow zombies to communicate with each other on a basic level even if they are not part of the same group. How? Well, let's say you are a ferral zombie. You stumble in Yagoton. You open the danger report. You see that Hinks is currently "under attack". What do you do? Wander around aimlessly or head to Hinks to participate in the destruction of the barricades, hoping to get a breach in? Another example: the danger report says the place is ruined and the guy who posted, whom you recognize to be from a competent zombie group, posted only a few hours ago. Will you head there and look at the ruined building or go elsewhere?
 +
:::::::::As a survivor, those reports serve little purpose. Either I'm going to get away from the reported building "under attack" because 1) it's common sense 2) it is reported so many more zombies will come in, ruining any chance which were pretty non existential to actually hold the place up... Or either be already dead from the breach. And in the case of a suburb wide zombie attack, the reports are going to be extremely unreliable at best, so again useless.
 +
:::::::::I don't know for you but for a play style heavily focused on lack of communication, adding good communication between players kind of become a way more helpful benefit than unreliable sightings... And that's my whole point. --{{User:Eagle of fire/signature}} 01:14, 14 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::::::This mindset is basically why zombies usually win sieges even though all of the math favors survivors when they keep NTs running.  Every successful siege I've been a part of on both sides has been won by better communication with the non-meta populace, something zombie groups are historically better at post-Caiger and that there was some parity in during the heyday of the Mall Which Must Not Be Named. It's the same thing that stopped the RRF at Santlerville and froze Big Bash 2 at Giddings for over a month(almost ending it there and/or in defeat if a few of us in the leader role hadn't talked the others into switching tactics and staying just long enough to give them time to work). As a survivor every siege I've participated in in a strategic role has relied heavily on catoring our tactics towards making it easier to keep the non-meta's involved particularly by keeping them alive and reviving them when they die(the best thing a coordinated group can do is repair and revive) where most other groups come in suspicious of everyone, revive only their members, and then blame Zombie Spies and Death Cultists for why they aren't able to establish a footing. It's even worse when they bring that mindset to sieges and approach it like hiding that there's a siege is helping them when any zombie group worth it's salt is groaning, gesturing, and updating through every venue they can find and recruiting idles slowly over time in timed break-ins while obscuring the revival pool(the best thing a survivor group can do in response to this is revive ''more'', track rotters, and do the best to raise the population of idle non-meta barricaders). <br /><br />
 +
:::::::::: You may not know me from a hole in the ground but I speak from a role of authority when it comes to zombie and survivor strategy. I've walked the walk when it comes to the talk I talk. And as a zombie horde leader in a number of large hordes the one thing I was always more than glad to make use of was the fact that I had a recruiting advantage ''because'' most survivor groups were massively paranoid and when I targetted the non-group survivors they stayed dead. It's the biggest thing I spent my time talking the survivor groups I've run/run with into focusing on and I've never seen it fail, this is including against groups like Extinction who use dedicated Zombie Spais, Alts, and Death Cultists all of which failed. You're giving up the momentum in a game of momentum in favor of smaller numbers and secrecy from the people that would help you.  --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:12, 14 June 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
::::::::::: Also two other notes as an addendum. The zombies that you should be most worried about don't choose targets based on suburb news, they choose targets based on the easiest path to be able to pull a horde and maintain momentum and the zombies that are left are the ones you want attacking you where you're strong, which would be where you have your active meta-users, instead of where you're weak, where you have your non-meta can't tell you when you lose stuff survivors. While survivors are directing the combat they almost always have the numbers advantage and make the most use of it when they have an instant communications network (forums for larger groupings, chat rooms for smaller). That's math and basic strategic logistics. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:16, 14 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::::::::Well, you know what? I completely agree with the vast majority of what you said. I just don't see how it is relevant with the suburb danger reports and this conversation. --{{User:Eagle of fire/signature}} 00:25, 15 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::::::::Suburb danger reports, when functioning as in your premise, draw priority of target to your place of strategic strength and when functioning as intended draw over all intention of feral/unaffiliated players who will be likely to be a net benefit when a group prioritizes non-idle functions like repairing and reviving. If a coordinated horde, for whatever unlikely reason, decided to respond to it they will bring ferals along behind them who, when appropriately responded to, will provide a net numerical benefit to survivors non-meta defense. When you strategically consider announcing and telegraphing your movements you'll be better strategically equipped to respond to them getting out there(which they will) and will always benefit. In this context, for many of those reasons, survivors have no real downside and plenty of reasons why it is a good idea. Not the least among them being that they will drive nearby killed survivors towards your area as that's one of the ways they search for active revives, via locations of active groups and news updates on the wiki. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:46, 15 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::::::::::I had to re-read what you just said plenty of times to really understand what you were trying to say. I wanted to reply right away but without really realizing what bothered me I thought it would only lead to confusion. Then I went to bed and thought about it the whole day until I realized that what really bother me is that you are right... But that "my premise" was to use the danger reports completely at the opposite of how they should be used. And that's what's bothering me and why I'm ignoring them to begin with. 'Cause I don't like acting like a dork. --{{User:Eagle of fire/signature}} 01:09, 18 June 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Date format ==
 +
DD-MM-YYYY being mistaken for MM-DD-YYYY could easily as well happen for YYYY-MM-DD and YYYY-DD-MM. Besides, there is only country in the world stupid enough for not maintaining an orderly format. --[[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: darkblue; background-color: white">'''Thadeous Oakley''']]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: gold; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span>  20:51, 5 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:That's not exactly true. There are no known cultures on earth that make use of the YYYY-DD-MM format, whereas YYYY-MM-DD is intuitive, sensible, and in common use in a number of nations and cultures, meaning that ambiguity is essentially as unlikely as it can possibly be in this context, and that the one being mistaken for the other could not happen very easily at all. In contrast, you and I are both aware of how ambiguous DD-MM-YYYY and MM-DD-YYYY can be when dealing with people from around the world, since there are billions of people on one side and hundreds of millions on the other. And while I do agree that the US' MM-DD-YYYY format is "stupid", I'd also fault those who use DD-MM-YYYY for "not maintaining an orderly format", since it doesn't order itself chronologically when lexicographically sorted, which would seem to be an obvious trait that would be desired. Long story short, ISO >>>>> everything else. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:27, 5 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::Also, Belize is as stupid as we are, apparently. They use MM-DD-YYYY too as their main format. :P {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:32, 5 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:May I cut in?
 +
:Scratch this in case you feel that it should be left out for any reasons.
 +
:Well,if there's an automated signature imprinting the exact date and time (such as  the above:5 June 2013 (BST)),then either ways the format would become clearer by comparison.
 +
:Even so,I'd have t concur that keeping a standard format may help everyone making things simple,clean and clear for all eventually.
 +
:It may work with having the month alphabetically written. That solves showing dates such as 2012:6:8 or 8:6:2012.
 +
:Also,when in Rome-do as the Romans do.
 +
:[[User:Concerned&#39;Citizen|Concerned&#39;Citizen]] 07:27, 6 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::There was some context to this conversation that you're unaware of. We were talking about the [[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop_Check|Sysop Check]] page, and since it uses future dates, we can't use auto-generated timestamps like we can with signatures. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:51, 6 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:As a point of fact the stupidiest(logic wise) date order is actually day, month, year. It's ass backwards when you need to know the year to know the length of days in a month and you need to know the month to know the length of days in a month. Logically it follows that [[wikipedia:Big-endian|Year, Month, Date]] is appropriate and forgiving movement of year to the end for common practice reasons(since you're basically supposed to know the year regardless) months limit days and has informational priority. So really it's all about how China and Japan calculate time. Anyone defending anything else is arguing for idiocy and at least middle-endian doesn't completely abandon logic when vocalization makes it the vocal big-endian.(You say November 5th not November 5th, 2013 when talking in the current year). Also, in addendum, the 'more people use it' argument loses ground when you know that India uses both month day and day month with one being the governmental method of practice since they were a colony and the other being the one popular in it's culture and media. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:01, 6 June 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
::Additionally now it can sort dates right with the exception of year followed by month Abbrevs but you all should still follow [[wikipedia:ISO_8601|ISO 8601]] because it's just right. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:42, 6 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::I didn't know it could do that. Neat fix. Learn something new every day. :) {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:51, 6 June 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Editting User Pages ==
 +
I was looking around at all the pages that call on the 5000 or so danger report templates, and I noticed that a lot of them were userpages.
 +
Since we're experiencing so much lag these days when the danger reports get updated, I was wondering if I could delete or disable the superfluous ones? Putting nowiki tags on them, with a little explanation that we disabled it because of performance issues and because they were unused. Problem is: they still are other peoples' user pages and I'm not sure what the wikipoliticians and wikilawyers would say about this, so any advice? {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 14:51, 18 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:The lag isn't from them. The lag is from the Danger Center needing to re-grab all 5000 templates every single time a single one of them changes, since the cache for the page needs to be recreated. Right now, updating a danger report might kick off, say, 5000 updates for the Danger Center and another 10 updates for the other pages mentioning that danger report, giving us a total of 5010 updates to do. Quite obviously, removing the 10 won't have a significant impact on performance. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:11, 18 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::Quite a lot of the pages I'm talking about are like [[User:Kelenius/Dakerstown Status Map|this one]], and call on about 50 everytime a single one of them changes. If we look at the "What links here" of the first one in the topleft corner, [[Special:WhatLinksHere/User:DangerReport/Palprey_Road_Police_Department]], one which is among the lesser used ones and lesser known ones, we see that several of those pages call on dozens of templates, including used, unused and personal test status maps, as well as specific building status maps (in this case the [[PD Status Map]]. That could amount to quite a lot of pages, each calling on a couple dozen templates, just for one danger report update, no? {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 15:18, 18 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::[[wikipedia:Help:Job_queue#Updating_links_tables_when_a_template_changes|In this case it would make no difference because it's a by page thing and not a by call thing]]. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:50, 18 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::I still don't really understand? The lag increased when we added the danger center, and it occurs more when updating the danger reports than when you look at the center itself. AFAIK the amount of times a danger report is called upon has a direct influence on that lag, ergo reducing the amount of maps that call upon a danger report should reduce the overall lag. Right? {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 16:59, 18 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::What Karek is saying (and what I was typing up before I saw that he had already linked exactly what I was going to say) is that the Danger Center is a gigantic job, whereas the other pages are not. The reason that matters, is because the wiki is configured to process one job in the queue per page load. As such, those smaller pages are not even getting processed at the same time as the Danger Center and are thus in no way contributing to the unresponsiveness that people are suffering. To draw an imperfect analogy, the job queue is like a relay race where every time the baton is passed a page gets loaded for a user. In this race, some runners (jobs) are slower than others. Quite obviously, you can improve the speed of the faster runners all you want, but you'll still be waiting the exact same amount of time for the slower ones to complete their laps and pass the baton. So, more or less, those smaller pages aren't contributing to the problem at all, since the unresponsiveness they create is separate from what people are complaining about and is small enough that most of us have never noticed it at all. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 18:39, 18 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::<del>Technical gobbledegook-> Yeah, sorta this. Basically everytime you load a page the job queue processes 1 job. Everytime you have a template on a page it loads a function and then on repeat calls of the template it just references the already loaded function. Different templates do have different costs but that's based on the size of the initial template, not so much the number of times it's called(which has a much smaller impact). Everytime you call a unique template the server has to go and make a new database connection and call that template's page content to then queue it up for the preprocessor/job queue. Batch processing it with the job queue means instead of having a half hour of horrific lag(where you have thousands of database connections and nothing can load) you queue up the change and then half multiple hours of much more negligbile lag(where you just double the normal page loads).</del> Super simple version is instead of having 5000 pages load when you edit danger reports it makes it so that for the next 5000 pages loaded you're basically loading 2 pages. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:49, 18 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::It sounds like you may have accidentally said the opposite of what you meant. Just to double check, as you said above, the queue adds jobs on a ''per-page'' basis, which means that the Danger Center is processed as a single job, just as each of those other pages is also processed as a single job (though clearly the Danger Center is a larger job). When a user visits a page, the wiki does the job at the front of the queue before it delivers the page to the user. When a danger report gets updated, each page that transcludes that danger report will receive a corresponding job to update the page. For those smaller pages, because they each have their own job, they get spread out over a number of page loads and cause no noticeable delay. For the Danger Center, it too is done as a single job attached to a single page load, but because it's a much larger job it creates an extremely noticeable delay (i.e. it does the 5000+ db operations you're talking about). I think that's what you meant to say, but please correct me if I'm mistaken. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 19:55, 18 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::::A lot of this is going to be process descriptive but not exact to how the code runs. It functions like a php include that contains a class with only a single method that's being batch processed. What happens is essentially when you update a template it checks to  see how many rows return in the table(see picture below) of transclusions. It then adds those pages(where the template is transcluded) to the jobs queue if there are more than a certain number.<br /><br /> The jobs queue then runs a preprocessor on each of those individual pages. The preprocessor runs through the page content sequentially until it finds text matching what it sees as a template call. It then runs that call through a check against all other held templates/functions already preprocessed, if it returns that none are already stored it queues up a database call to the page(usually a template) being transcluded. It searches for include only tags then for noinclude tags to determine content and then [[Wikipedia:Template_limits#What_is_this_about.3F|converts the uneliminated text]] into [http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_tree.asp XML Trees] and stores this as a callable variable to be referenced when the same template is called later in the text. That means it only calls the template from the database once per page instead of however many times the template is included in the page.<br /><br />Once the preprocessor sets limits on the generated text size for the final result and stops converting template content after a certain point. There are a number of reasons for this but the biggest one I can imagine would relate to the topic of [http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/64525/tr-2006-45.pdf this white paper] microsoft released a few years back(pages are stored in blobs) about large file vs blob performance. The end result all then gets thrown through the parser when the page is called which converts wikitext like to it's output state.<br /><br />My understanding is thus that when a page does not hit the rows returned in the 'Pages Included On' check it runs the preprocessor in reverse, thus processing all of the pages then and there making x calls where x is the amount of pages it's included on. When it determines that this would be too much strain for the server based on the limits set it instead queues them up for batch processing so that the calls are processed at a set interval and not all at once. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:07, 19 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::::::I love the technical description (honestly, I do), but that's actually tangential to what I was asking. You already explained the details below, and I thought it was well understood that that's what the function of the job queue is, since it's basically just "baking" elements for later use. What I was talking about was specifically the un-struck line you left, since the problem we're having is that it's ''not'' being broken up into 5000 jobs, which is what it sounds like you were suggesting is happening. That's why I said you sounded like you were saying the opposite of what you meant. ;) {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 05:34, 19 June 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::::::I was insanely oversimplifying, the default value is [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgUpdateRowsPerJob 500 operations] and each job itself is 500 operations. So with a current job queue of 6 that's roughly 3000 transclusions. Basically it is just the numbers are obscured, additionally [[user:Kevan|Kevan]] might have changed it but it's unlikely. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:16, 19 June 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
:::::[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/MediaWiki_1.20_%2844edaa2%29_database_schema.png This] may help some. The Job Queue, from my understanding, basically functions like the preprocessor for templates so that the stored wiki text can be served faster on significantly large template calls to minimize load time. Templates are thrown into the job queue based on how many pages need to be preprocessed and it converts them into wiki-text/html there. Because job queue processing isn't done through a cron or based on server load it's happenning while other things are being done on the server, so lag will increase be it 1 template call on a page or 10 as it's running the same script either way. As far as impact on performance, because there's no additional complexity to the call(you should only have to queue up the template's content once regardless) it's of neglible impact of processing speed. You get a bigger impact from an increase in unique templates as 0-1 is where you're having to open a new file stream or make a new databse connection(which is likely the cause of the lag). [http://musialek.org/?p=94 Preprocessor ref]. This is also one of many reasons templated signatures suck, they slow down the wiki for everyone, particularly more so the more pages they're on. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:43, 18 June 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
Too bad, I really hoped to optimize this whole thing... Then again: the danger reports ''are'' updated regularly these days, even more with BB4, and that was always one of the goals :) Maybe I'll go on a little wiki-patrol later today and just list a ton of stuff that can be deleted or otherwise archived to clean the whole wiki a bit out. {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 12:54, 19 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:If you want to optimize these pages you could make the core templates use non-wikicode code, here's a list [[wikipedia:m:Help:HTML_in_wikitext|m:Help:HTML_in_wikitext]], it'll reduce the work done when the parser runs. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:12, 19 June 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Mob Locator Map Style Practice ==
 +
Hi Aichon,
 +
you should update the comment on http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Militant_Order_of_Barhah/Locator&action=edit&section=3 to reflect the actual practice which is used to colour the map.
 +
greetings [[User:Ja7|Ja7]] 13:09, 25 June 2013 (BST)
 +
:Sorry, I got it wrong. See my edits to MOB Locator. {{unsigned|Ja7|13:12, 25 June 2013}}
 +
::Yup, looks like you got it figured out, though I really need to update the Locator since it's several suburbs out of date at the moment. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:46, 25 June 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== A/SA questions ==
 +
I'm planning to start moving the A/PM archives into A/SA format, and I had a couple questions.
 +
#What do we do about awkward redlinking of archives for those who were never sysops? [[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Akule/2008-04-01 Promotion|Example]] - "Akule" is redlinked in the breadcrumbs.
 +
#I'm planning to convert the A/PM navtemplates so they can be kept in one location, and am adding [[:Category:Promotions Archives|a key]] to make them more detailed. Would something like that (or which already exists for A/BP) be useful for A/RE and A/M as well? (Not to be included on each page, but be in one location for cross-referencing.)
 +
 +
Thanks! {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 16:40, 18 August 2013 (BST)
 +
:There's nothing saying we can't make pages for the non-sysops too, and with your changes to put it all in tables, it seems like the concerns we have about it taking up too much space have been alleviated pretty well. I'm thinking give them their own page, and kill two birds (the red-link and the fact that the table will get bulky as we add data) with one stone.
 +
 +
:As for the key, I kinda feel like the improved categorization is designed to remove the need for keys and color-coding sort of stuff, though the categories could definitely be better-linked from A/SA in order to make them more useful. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:50, 18 August 2013 (BST)
 +
::Ok! I can make pages for them easily. I'm gonna stick with making the key for now, mostly as a way for me to keep track of which ones I've moved so far; it can always be easily de-keyed later. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 01:08, 19 August 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== IRC ==
 +
Can you jump on when you've got a minute, please? --{{User:RenegadeRomero/Sig}} 20:50, 20 August 2013 (BST)
 +
:Done. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 20:58, 20 August 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== A/D ==
 +
As a note, Revenant's revelation would be what would normally be a checkuser policy allowance. In this case he actually would probably be one of the better authorities on this since he can potentially compare it to one of the various RG boards. Odds are this is another Nubis type situtation in which case you guys should lock the account in question and send an email via the wiki, if possible, letting him know what has happened, why, and how he can contact one of you guys to resolve it. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:48, 26 August 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Editing building pages........ ==
 +
Am i allowed to edit Building pages,particularly the Krinks power station description and make changes to it.
 +
 +
Another question.If i were to post in the current description should i remove the "please sign your post " thing or should i just post on there and leave it like that?[[User:Paynetrain|<font size="4" face="Matura MT Script Capitals" color="red">Payne</font>]][[User talk:Paynetrain|<font size="4" face="Matura MT Script Capitals" color="blue">Train</font>]]<sup>'''([[NWO]]/[[FU]])'''</sup> 16:31, 1 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:You're allowed to make changes to the descriptions of location pages, provided that your changes are in good faith and are written from a neutral point of view (they're unowned pages in the main space, so anyone is free to edit them, so long as they follow those two guidelines, more or less). And if you're making edits to the current news for a building...well, to be honest, I wouldn't, since those sections are rarely used or looked at...but if you do, then I'd leave the instructions to sign your posts, but then would comment underneath it, probably. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:48, 1 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::Thank you--[[User:Paynetrain|<font size="4" face="Matura MT Script Capitals" color="red">Payne</font>]][[User talk:Paynetrain|<font size="4" face="Matura MT Script Capitals" color="blue">Train</font>]]<sup>'''([[NWO]]/[[FU]])'''</sup> 02:32, 2 September 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
==really?==
 +
If you're going to lock cobras edit at least post an opinion on the new edits on the krinks talk page, please. This is not an issue of NWO vs cobra, this is an issue of cobra smudging our integrity, I hope you can give a decent 3rd party perspective on thus subject for the sake of the wiki and the one of the few posting rules you can enforce. Thanks [[User:H4ppy 24 7|H4ppy 24 7]] 03:52, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:No, this isn't about any of those things. This is about the two of you acting like children and me taking away your toys until you learn to play nice with each other. The point is not for me to get involved; it's for you two to figure this out between yourselves while the page remains temporarily protected for a day or two, as per our standard procedure in response to edit warring. I'm not going to shove myself into this as a mediator with a third-party perspective. This is between you guys. I'm just giving you a few days to mull it over. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 04:03, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
==You make me cry==
 +
How dare you don't list me as arbitraorer. --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User:Rosslessness/Safehouse_Hatred|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]  21:08, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:You're not the only one, Ross. I've been left out too. Damn it, Aic. I thought we had something special. :( I demand to be listed or I shall take you to Arby's for not listing me as arbitrator! --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack: The Legend Returns to the Wiki]] 21:31, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::You've already been turned down by others. I only listed names that hadn't been turned down yet. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:36, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:::I want a divorce. :( --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack: The Legend Returns to the Wiki]] 21:59, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::::We promised each other we'd never say the D-word! {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:22, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::I want Grim to arbitrate. He is the ultimate jury, judge, and witnesses all in one. --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack: The Legend Returns to the Wiki]] 22:53, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::::::''Wehll, ah'll ask heem, but ah dohn't theenk he'll be verrah keen...'' {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 05:32, 14 September 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
:I thought about adding you, but you have a knack for handing out even-handed judgments that leave ''both'' sides feeling like they didn't get everything they wanted out of the case. That's good most of the time, but it's not what I want here. Treat the omission of your name as a compliment. ;) {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:36, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:At least he didn't exclude you in particular like he did me XD {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 22:00, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::You got excluded for basically the same reason as Ross. Take it as the compliment it was intended to be. :P {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:22, 11 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:::i accept. think cyber will agree?--{{User:Sexualharrison/sig}}<small>02:55, 12 September 2013 </small>
 +
 +
I come back to find you embroiled in the most drama-tic thing going on on the wiki? Times certainly have changed.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 02:30, 13 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:I'm as surprised as you are. I figured there'd be an arbitration case at some point, since things were building in that direction, but not yet, and certainly not involving me. In fact, they just made their opening statements and didn't list a single complaint against me. It's just bizarre. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 02:37, 13 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::it really didn't take much. and I'm surprised i'm not personally in the case. oh well [[File:Popcorn.gif]] --{{User:Sexualharrison/sig}}<small>03:06, 13 September 2013 </small>
 +
:::Can I make a parody page of an arbitration page?  I'll use all the nice lines and stuff that DT is using.  Any rule against that?--<span style="border:solid 1px #AF7817; padding: 0px 1px; background-color: #E7DFCE; color: black;">'''[[User:Squid Boy/SaysF|Seekandyeshallfind]]'''</span> <sup>[[User_talk:Squid Boy/SaysF|<span style="border:solid 1px #AF7817; padding: 0px 1px; background-color: #E7DFCE; color: black;">QI</span>]]'''  <sup>[[Philosophe Knights|<span style="color:#AF7817">PK</span>]]</sup></sup> 03:07, 13 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::::I think that's fine, but make sure it's not in the UDWiki: namespace (probably your own userspace is the best choice) {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 03:17, 13 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:::::If you parody me as an Arbitrato, so help me I will reduce you to a quivering puddle of tears and fecal matter, and then I'll make you spend Christmas with the BAR. '''~*DOOM*~''', etc.
 +
:::::And then I'll probably laugh at the parody. --{{User:DT/Signature}} 20:04, 14 September 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
Looks like you got out of this in time. Not a bigg fan of howw its going. --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User:Rosslessness/Safehouse_Hatred|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]  23:21, 14 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:Well, I don't have many opportunities where I feel justified in baring my teeth, so I have to admit that I kinda enjoy them when they come around, and am a bit disappointed when they don't live up to expectations, which is what happened here. And I'm a bit surprised to hear you say that, since I had figured that you'd be handling it at least somewhat similarly. I.e. Relatively straight-laced, even though that may not be your preference. Am I off-base? {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 23:59, 14 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::Am I a shitty arbitrator? Tell me the truth, I can take it. --{{User:DT/Signature}} 01:12, 15 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:::I don't think so, but you already have more experience in arbitration proceedings than I do, so take my word with a grain of salt. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 02:41, 15 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::::They're always going to be clusterfucks. Fine so far, but remember the wiki policies aren't up for discussion here, it's the actions of the people involved. Then silly beggars. --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User:Rosslessness/Safehouse_Hatred|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]  12:21, 15 September 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== May I ask? ==
 +
[[User_talk:Ayu_Milady/Archives]] is this okay or not? and.. where should I ask for things like this? thanks :) --[[User:Ayu Milady|<b><font color="#90B818">Ayu</font></b>]] [[User talk:Ayu Milady|<b><font color="#11B4BD">Milady</font></b>]] <sup><font face="Cambria">[[NWO|<font color="Silver">NWO</font>]] member</font></sup> [[User:Ayu_Milady/Sig | <span style="font-family:High Tower Text; color: orange; font-weight:normal;">(┛ò__ó)┛彡┻━┻</span>]] 08:10, 14 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:Are you asking if it's okay to put it there? If so, absolutely. Anything that starts with "User:Ayu Milady/" or "User talk:Ayu Milady/" is in your userspace, and with a few exceptions, you are essentially free to do anything you want in there. [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ayu_Milady&curid=161152&diff=2098886&oldid=2098883&rcid=2171620 This edit earlier] was not okay, since there's [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Prohibiting_Content_Outside_of_the_Normal_Page_Area|a policy governing how custom titles can be used]], but you've already corrected the problem, so what you have now is fine. As for where you can ask questions like these, you're welcome to continue asking me, of course, but otherwise you can use a page like [[UDWiki:Wiki Questions]], where other people can respond more easily as well. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 19:52, 14 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::Yeah, because usually people generate sub pages on user page, not the talk page. I see.. sorry for the custom title. Thank you for answering my questions. It really helps :] --{{User:Ayu Milady/Sig}} 12:50, 15 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:::you can do it how ever you like.. but i prefer only one talk page to check and edit. it just keeps down on the clutter and amount of time i spend on wasting time while wasting time.--{{User:Sexualharrison/sig}}<small>15:04, 15 September 2013 </small>
 +
::::Okay... Right, thanks...... Sexualharrison. --{{User:Ayu Milady/Sig}} 20:25, 15 September 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== WHAT SORRY ==
 +
Oh my gosh what did I do? The best I can come up with is it saved before all 170kbytes had loaded properly. I did ''not'' mean to delete half of June and most of August. Oops. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 04:18, 20 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:Not only that, but it's not a talk page, it has a big box outlined in red at the top saying don't change it, and the top of the code reminds you in all-caps to not edit it. I'm super upset! FROWNY FACE!! {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 04:21, 20 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::I'm actually sitting here laughing out loud. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 04:32, 20 September 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== Template:If equal ==
 +
Aichon - it looks like your change to the If equal template just now has broken the [[User:TargetReport/Ridleybank|RRF target map]] (and presumably some other pages too... ) - I believe because that space you removed ''is'' needed by the Switch template.  I've tested it out in my sandbox and putting space back in seems to fix it so I'm going to try reverting (just) that part of your change now...
 +
:What exactly did it break? I didn't see anything broken when I just tried removing the space again, and the space definitely isn't necessary for the switch statement to work, which makes me think that there's actually something on your side that was counting on some odd behavior in the template for the way it functions. If so, I'd like to fix it on that side, since it's preferable to keep such commonly-used templates as small as possible, and I really never should have put that space there in the first place. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 23:50, 20 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::Ignore what I said. It is required. Or at least it is some of the time. No clue why it works for me sometimes and not others. Anyway, I'll be leaving it in, to say the least. Sorry about that. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 00:01, 21 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:::Thanks.  All now working again for me. --[[User:Rick Dulton|Rick Dulton]] 00:54, 21 September 2013 (BST)
 +
::You likely won't see them for a bit unless you save the page. I imagine the if templates are quite heavily included. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 11:21, 21 September 2013 (BST)
 +
:::Also the reason has to do with the {{tl|Switch}} template because what you're essentially doing is overwritting variable 1 with a matched variable term. in their example the value becomes case: {{{width}}} which is then matched by the second case: {{{width}}}(or whatever it returns) building the variable case: {{{width}}} with a default value of default unless otherwise assigned. So you're making a variable that is {{{case: value}}}, if you remove the space from one you have to remove it from the other but if you do that you'll break every switch call made to this point. It's basically the closest that can be reached without an operands processor. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 11:33, 21 September 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== GSGM ==
 +
Just letting you know that, barring unforeseen circumstances, I'm planning to post the group talk messages, add the suburb news messages and update the Main Page sometime this weekend. I tried looking into system messages but I have no idea how that works - any advice? Also, I don't have Facebook, so I'd need someone to post there about it.
 +
 +
Hope moving is going well! {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 10:11, 9 October 2013 (BST)
 +
:Afraid I don't have Facebook either. As for [[Special:AllMessages|system messages]] (which you can access from the [Special:SpecialPages|Special pages]] link on the side), I don't remember which one it is, but one of those, if it has text, causes a message to appear at the top of the page on EVERY page for as long as that message is there. I think we had some issues with it conflicting with some of the various themes that people can choose in their preferences, but I wasn't able to work on it myself last time we looked into it, since it was after I had stepped down from being a sysop, and I can't remember how significant the issues were. If they were just minor issues like the message getting covered up or not appearing, then I'd say we should still go ahead with it, since it'll at least reach some more people.
 +
:Also, leave some work for other people. I know you're more than capable of doing it all yourself, but it's better to let some other people get their feet wet with this sort of stuff. It helps get more people involved in the wiki and its upkeep, which is better for its long-term health than if no one learns the ropes and everyone learns to be dependent on a few people. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:26, 9 October 2013 (BST)
 +
::Ok, it's [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] that does the trick, apparently. We had an issue with it previously, where any text provided would push down content on every single page, and that would wreak havoc with pages that had fixed elements, such as every page with custom titles (it'd push the actual title out from underneath the custom title). The fix is straightforward and you can see it in the page's history. It'll still be hidden behind the custom titles, and we'll be limited to only a line or so before it starts to get awkward, but it should work.
 +
::Oh, and I'm basically moved at this point. I have another load or two of miscellaneous junk to transport, but all of the furniture is done, and the move is thankfully just across town. I finally got my computer setup put back together last night, so I'll likely be back on more often sooner than I was expecting. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:38, 9 October 2013 (BST)
 +
:::Perfect! And yeah, I will do my best to let the volunteers do most of this part of things. I don't think we should put up the sitenotice and such until the messages to groups are out, so I'll make it clear that's the priority when I send a message to volunteers, probably Friday-Saturday. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 16:10, 9 October 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== ruse de guerre ==
 +
Article 37. – Prohibition of perfidy<br />
 +
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:<br />
 +
(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;<br />
 +
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;<br />
 +
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and<br />
 +
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
 +
 +
Therefore- I submit that Doug's actions, while naughty, do NOT qualify as perfidy according to the to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, rather I would say it falls under a ruse de guerre. The "deliberate planting of false information" is a standard practice and common in warfare. And furthermore, he was still flying the PKnights colors. So- I would say that I was hoist with my own petard. Well played, sir. Live and let die, --[[User:Belisarius17|Belisarius17]] 02:20, 10 October 2013 (BST)
 +
:Were I not still "flying the colors", as you put it, I'd contend that I actually would be guilty under Article 37§1.C, given that I had provided an indication that I was a non-combatant. Admittedly, it was a ruse, and, in fact, it's one that's been in place for years, but rarely ever pays off in visible ways (though I'd wager it's helped me silently more than once over the years). To say the least, it brought quite the smile to my face when I saw that it had worked its magic here. Even so, you couldn't possibly have known, but I actually struggled for several hours with how I should respond. You know what my final choice was, of course, but it took me quite a long time to reach that decision.
 +
:Also, just to be clear, when the Knights welcome an individual, either to our home or to a location we are maintaining, such as the petting zoo, we are always genuine in our invitations. Those are never ruses, and we truly will refrain from killing, since the point of our educations is to point individuals towards those places. If they're there, then the lesson has been learned, and no further education is necessary (some exceptions apply, though none in our current engagement).
 +
:Anyway, think about what I said, and I look forward to seeing you around. {{User:Aichon/Psig}} 04:19, 10 October 2013 (BST)
 +
 +
 +
== GSGM ==
 +
Hello Aichon, and thanks again for volunteering to help out with the [[GSGM 2013]]! The main phase of this year's GSGM is just beginning, which means there are [[The Great Suburb Group Massacre/2013/Volunteer Organization#Current tasks|a number of tasks]] for volunteers to help out with. These include adding information to suburb News sections and contacting groups on their talk pages, as well as some other items. Feel free to check out [[The Great Suburb Group Massacre/2013/Volunteer Organization|our volunteer page]] for all the details. Have a great day! {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 13:53, 19 October 2013 (BST)

Latest revision as of 23:02, 25 February 2016

Aichon:Talk Archive 2013
Aichon
ˈīˌkän :Talk Archive 2013
Personal tools
project wonderful
column-okay