User talk:Aichon

Aichon:Talk

• Main
• Characters
• Sandbox

• Talk
• Userscripts
• Other

Aichon

ˈīˌkän :Talk

Announcement: I'm no longer active. My talk page is still your best bet to get in touch. —Aichon— 04:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware of the following guidelines before posting here.

• New conversations should be started at the bottom using a level two header (e.g. ==Header==).
• I like to keep conversations wherever they start, but if a conversation ends up here, I will keep it here.
• I will format comments for stylistic reasons, delete comments for whatever reason, and generally do anything else within reason.

Thanks. —Aichon—

Archives: 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | To do

Images

Use the image on its own description or talk page. Counts as used without needing to be arked anywhere. You can even have it display at 1px wide so it's almost like it's not there. 02:25, 11 July 2011 (BST)

Still a bit silly, don't you think? I mean, why is something like that necessary at all? —Aichon— 02:27, 11 July 2011 (BST)

I guess it could do with being a speedy, rather than scheduled, crit. That way there's room in intervene before it's processed. 02:29, 11 July 2011 (BST)

I didn't mean so much in those terms. I'm fine with the policy. What I don't like is the wiki's way of figuring out which ones are unused. :P —Aichon— 02:35, 11 July 2011 (BST)

How else would you expect it to figure them out?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:33, 23 July 2011 (BST)

The software already knows which pages are linked to. I'd like it to simply use that with images before declaring an image unused. Why they don't is beyond me. —Aichon— 02:44, 23 July 2011 (BST)

They don't because an image that is linked to isn't necessarily even in use.

Also: We shouldn't really be keeping all to many images around if they're not used. The whole point of the Unused Image page is to tell us which images are no longer needed.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:51, 23 July 2011 (BST)

It's barely even an issue anymore since we can undelete images... Unless Kevan changed it back? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:58, 23 July 2011 (BST)

He didn't, but I think that makes it even sillier. If the images are going to stay regardless, then there's even less reason to be picky about which ones we keep or delete. Might as well consider them used, rather than unused. —Aichon— 03:05, 23 July 2011 (BST)

I think we have a difference in definition here. For me, in addition to placing an image on a page, if it's linked, I consider it to be used. I understand the rationale behind removing unused images, but I simply don't think that linked images should be considered to be unused by the software. I'm not talking about any policy changes, since I think it would be annoying to have a policy that's not in sync with the software, but I just wish the wiki software had an option or setting that could be changed. —Aichon— 03:05, 23 July 2011 (BST)

Well, not sure that I entirely agree with you on that one. The reason for this setup is simple, though: Wikipedia's only use for images is to include them in articles. For them, the only reason to link to an image is really to discuss its deletion. Hence, this setup makes perfect sense for them.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 03:37, 23 July 2011 (BST)

That may be Wikipedia's only use for them, but that's by convention only. There's no good reason why articles couldn't simply contain links to images as a valid, alternative convention. That's why I think that an option would be nice, rather than locking everyone into their way of doing it. —Aichon— 04:23, 23 July 2011 (BST)

Not really: That would mean regularly clogging up A/SD with pointless doubled-handled requests.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:33, 23 July 2011 (BST)

Here's what I did.. For images I want to be sure are kept I just made a page in my userspace for them to sit. That way they are always in use even if they technically aren't being used in any useful way.       04:49, 23 July 2011 (BST)

Yep. We call that an image ark. My gripe is that I think it's silly that such things are necessary when the image is actually being used (despite what the software says) in some way. In the end though, it's just a gripe, and there's nothing any of us can do to change things. The way we do things now for them is the correct one while the software is this way, and I wouldn't want it changed. —Aichon— 05:08, 23 July 2011 (BST)

Ah didn't recognize the term when it was mentioned above. I can see your point about links should count as use though.       13:59, 23 July 2011 (BST)

katthew bid

I was just getting at the fact that she was considered qualified enough to make the rules of the wiki, and that means the primary rules not the intiracies of them. She was considered able enough to have qwhat, at the time, amounted to a stake of absolute control of the wiki, they were literal moderators. And that she was considered qualified enough to develop most of the systems we use to this day, including but not limited to suggestions. She has shown interest enough to consistently bring real activity to the wiki and influence enough to get ideas implemented in-game without going through the standard system(that she made). The idea that she's not able to do the job seems kinda unrealistic when you consider that she made the job, although I do understand what you mean. She may not know all the rule spam but she does know the why's of the rules better than all but a handfull and the spirit should always trump the letter. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:45, 13 July 2011 (BST)

I understand where you're coming from, but all of that basically boils down to whether or not we trust her judgment, which is only one factor among several that need to be considered. And, as you know, being a former sysop is not an automatic entry pass. I have no idea where to even begin looking up the discussions from back then that would tell me whether or not she was competent at her job or actually made the level of contributions that you say she did. I also don't know the circumstances regarding her departure as a sysop (not for lack of looking), which may impact her credibility. But without even having to look at her prior record of service, we can see that she hasn't contributed anything meaningful to the sysop-level discussions since after the 2007 purge, nor has she generally been active on the wiki at all. Not knowing the new rules is just the tip of the iceberg. By all indications, she has no demonstrated interest in bettering the wiki. —Aichon— 17:42, 13 July 2011 (BST)

Also, I realized not too long ago that I've been confrontational with you for no good reason. I know it won't mean much without action to back it up, but I wanted to apologize for it regardless, and to make it clear that even though we argue frequently, I still do respect your opinion greatly. —Aichon— 17:57, 13 July 2011 (BST)

UD Tool Script

Do you know of or could make a version of UDTool that works on the updated FF? There are quite a few people that would be interested in it I'm sure.        02:52, 20 July 2011 (BST)

UDTool is a FF extension, and I have no experience in working with those, nor do I have time at the moment to take on a new project (I might in a few months :/). To be perfectly honest though, I'm not really interested in it since the reason I make userscripts is for myself, and I'm afraid I don't use FF typically. I can't remember who fixed up UDTool last time, but you might talk to Revenant, since I wouldn't be surprised if he knows who it was or whether there's someone working on fixing it this time. —Aichon— 03:03, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Pretty sure that's the general's baby.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:05, 20 July 2011 (BST)

I wasn't sure who to ask I just figured the guy with the userscript page would be a good person to ask lol. I shall ask the general then.        03:21, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Just saw hes on holiday. Dang.       03:23, 20 July 2011 (BST)

You can still ask; talk messages don't degrade if left unanswered for a while! :P

To answer your question, the latest version available here and should work fine with the latest version of FireFox. If you have any problems then feel free to contact me either on my talk page, through email, or by posting on the thread on Resensitized.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:12, 21 July 2011 (BST)

I was just gonna wait :P       14:59, 21 July 2011 (BST)

you there

I am viewing your page in Chrome. Unfortunately, the breakage of the custom title code has made it icky. You should amend your notice to "Best viewed on another wiki". 04:07, 20 July 2011 (BST)

I'll just change it to "Best on a Mac" instead. ;) —Aichon— 04:26, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Seriously though, I'm downloading Chrome now to check out the issue, since I had deleted Chrome awhile back. —Aichon— 04:26, 20 July 2011 (BST)

I didn't notice any code breakage but I am on a mac.        04:28, 20 July 2011 (BST)

I'm looking at it on Chrome, and I see no issues. Are you on the latest Chrome release, Mis? I'm currently using version 12. —Aichon— 04:29, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Anything that puts content outside the main page area stopped working for me when the wiki was updated, I didn't think it's a browser thing. Is no one else getting that same breakage? 04:34, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Can't say I'm seeing that. In your wiki preferences, are you using the default theme? —Aichon— 04:38, 20 July 2011 (BST)

You know, I honestly don't know. Hold on til I check. 04:40, 20 July 2011 (BST)

04:40, 20 July 2011 (BST)

That was it? —Aichon— 04:44, 20 July 2011 (BST)

That was it. I can enjoy Link's game again now. 04:46, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah the default urbandead theme is borked. Really need to add something to notify people to change that. ~ _{05:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

The default one is fine. It's the others that are borked. I think... —Aichon— 05:31, 20 July 2011 (BST)

If that's the case then we probably need some more testing. General, Karek and I (and probably some others) tested it and put together Help:Wiki Update. It might be that other browsers or macs have different skin specific issues. ~ _{05:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

The custom title template has had issues with other themes for years (I believe that DDR, Rooster, and I have talked about it in the past), so this isn't related to Macs, PCs, or the wiki software update. It's just a matter of it only being designed with the default theme in mind. It simply works with a few of the others because they were based on the default. —Aichon— 05:47, 20 July 2011 (BST)

I suspect you're right and custom title is somewhat borked as well. The fact that it didn't work for Mis after the wiki update until he updated his skin made me think that urbandead was to blame. But I just changed tested it myself and checked a few different pages and it looked fine. Maybe Mis has been drinking heavily again. ~ _{06:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

Actually, I think the problem was that he wasn't using the default theme previously, and that he switched to it, which fixed the issue for him. I use the default theme all the time (I figure things should always look best in it, after all), so I'd have noticed if it had a major issue. —Aichon— 06:40, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah, I suppose that's very possible. ~ _{07:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

We should all swap to the blue theme, because that's the one that Boxy uses. :D --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 08:57, 21 July 2011 (BST)

It's borked for me. Any letters that extend like p or q or y etc. are not covered by the custom title splotch of the title of the page. So there's a little square bit of pixels left to be viewed by me as something unsightly and that desperately should be covered up. Indecent exposure, if you will--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 07:25, 21 July 2011 (BST)

I think that's more of an issue with the template height than anything. I had the same problem with the decender on my user page until I increased the height of my custom title with a span tag. ~ _{07:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah, I tried fiddling that, and got it everything covered in Safari, but in Firefox, the line under the page title header was covered (so line disappeared), fiddled to try and make the heights more precise, still didn't work. So I gave up. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:23, 21 July 2011 (BST)

Ah the line. Probably have to cheat and just add ---- just below the cutom title code. ~ _{16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

meh

i created the fucking tool, i can has the right to not edit it if i wants it --hagnat 04:07, 31 July 2011 (BST)

:P —Aichon— 04:28, 31 July 2011 (BST)

That makes absolutely no fucking sense. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:54, 31 July 2011 (BST)

Does it really matter if it makes sense? So long as he knows to do it next time, he could tell us he didn't do it because he's the Queen of England and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. :P —Aichon— 06:09, 31 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah but he didn't say he would do it next time. he implied the opposite if you ask me, for an illogical, egotistical and generally retarded reason -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:42, 31 July 2011 (BST)

Eh, not like it really bothers anyone much, myself included. Practically everyone forgets to do it. —Aichon— 07:47, 31 July 2011 (BST)

looks like he did it next time when suggestion o/d went up. I think hagz was just joking around. Lighten up ddr (or perhaps sober up). ~ _{08:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}

Help!

I made a template for rotation but it doesn't work on chrome or safari,only firefox. I can't seem to get it working. Even just the plain code only seems to work on an image. I'm gonna work on it more later but I figured more a experienced coder might get it fixed faster. Heres teh link http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Template:Rotate and one to my sandbox where I've been playing with the codehere       19:46, 4 August 2011 (BST)

Probably have to use a style sheet to make it so. ~ _{20:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)}

I believe the issue might be that webkit expects you to only use that on block-level elements, not inline elements. For instance, looking at your sample page, the image is flipped in Safari, while your signature is not. Since images are block-level elements by default, while text (even in spans) are inline elements, that seems like the most reasonable explanation to me. When I changed some of your sample code to use divs instead of spans, they reacted as you'd expect. EDIT: Karek just figured out the same thing as I did while I was typing this up. —Aichon— 20:29, 4 August 2011 (BST)

Yeah right as I walked out the door of my house I realized my image used div instead of span but I wasn't sure if that was the cause or not.       04:17, 5 August 2011 (BST)

UD Map Links

Hey-o! I saw that you updated the UD Map Links script after I did -- that's awesome, thank you! I upgraded to your version tonight but noticed the script's description still says that it links to the CDF's map. No big deal, just thought I'd make you aware.  :) Thanks again for the update and also for the other neat, new scripts! Best regards --Lucy Daniels 05:51, 26 September 2011 (BST)