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

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
m (Protected "User:Aichon/Archive 2013": User Request ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
 
(7 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 672: Line 672:
 
::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)
 
::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)
 
:::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