Difference between revisions of "User talk:Briess"

Revision as of 16:50, 5 November 2009

Extension request

A string manipulation extension would allow things to be dynamically created from raw files and other powerful templates. With the upcoming big change to creature structure in DF, something that pulls info directly from raw data would really help rework the creature pages. I've been looking through some extensions, and one of these would fit well (in order of preference)

The first one is a replacement function that can preform multiple replacements in one call (and it supports regex). The second one is a straightforward regex engine, and the last one is a collection of string manipulations. For my suggested purpose just one of the three would be enough, but none of them completely covers the tasks the of others. So, if possible, having all of them would be best. VengefulDonut 21:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Their functionality does overlap a lot. The differences are as follows:

Multireplace can preform multiple replacements with one call, which the second one cannot. It can evaluate regular expressions for the replacement.
RegexParserFunctions can preform a regex replacement. It can also be used for a regex search, which multireplace isn't meant for.

Multireplace would be better suited for a template that generates diagrams. Regexparserfunctions could do this by nesting the function call many times, which I don't think is a good idea.

Regexparserfunctions would be better suited for a template that pulls information from raw data files. Multireplace could do this by matching everything before and after the matchtext and cropping it, like so: (.*)(matchtext)(.*)=$2. However, to do this multireplace is effectively matching the entire page at once. VengefulDonut 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a possible alternative: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RegexFunctions VengefulDonut 05:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive Subdomain problem

Sorry to bother, i sent an email to senso, but it seems that you are the new admin. Grats. Yesterday i was surfing the archive [1] and suddendly it started to redirect to a french blog. Now it redirect to the main wiki. (Actually every subdomain redirects to the main wiki, also invalid ones) Can you bring it back? I know that it's rarely used, but sometimes it's funny to build 2D nostalgia fortresses. --Tempus 09:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Contact info?

Thanks for stepping up. Are you going to have an e-mail contact addy, for less public communication? --Albedo 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Favicon

The favicon for the previous wiki seems not to have been copied over. VengefulDonut 18:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20071127071819/http://www.dwarffortresswiki.net/favicon.ico VengefulDonut 01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You may want to watch this page

Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Spamreport VengefulDonut 01:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Short delay for new accounts?

Some wikis have a policy of a short waiting period between the creation of a new user account and the ability to edit an article. (On the main wiki, I believe this is 30 days.) This delay achieves 3 things, but the only one I'm really concerned with is that it would seriously slow down bots and spammers. As a side benefit, it also prevents confused newbies from editing before they have a feel for the wiki as a whole, and spontaneous, ill-considered or mean-spirited contributions from a variety of other less-than-serious sources, such as the occasional spur-of-the-moment vandal or the late-Saturday-night beer-goggled comedy writing team. I think 1 week would be ample, but even a 48 or 72 hour period might slow the spam bots. No editor who has a worthwhile contribution to make would resent 48 hours to consider their first effort.

Just a thought.--Albedo 02:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

IP numbers instead of sig?

When I was trying to use the standard --~~~~ sig, IP numbers are coming up instead of the user/date. See Talk:Furniture Industry. Don't know what's up wi'dat. --Albedo 06:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible you were logged out at the time? I enabled
 anonymous edits for at least a trial period earlier today...

Okay, that must have been it - I had no notification that it wouldn't accept my edit, so...
Otoh, I, for one, do have a problem when a page gets edited by 24.198.25.175 - how do I respond on their talk page? More, don't some smaller ISP's still share IP numbers between users over time in the same area? So... who, exactly, made that edit? Everyone with that ISP? Lastly, when keeping getting a feel for who is editing what, and their style, hard to mentally keep casual track of an IP addy. Just one vote, but in this case, it's one of dissent.--Albedo 18:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you da boss. You may want to make a general announcement, perhaps on the "current events" page? It's rather jarring to see IP's instead of user:names, and I would never have guessed that their :talk page would work - might want to mention that, too, for all the other ignorants out there. (Also, if I never "don't log in" again, I'll never see any response to the one IP edit I did make, right? 2 user pages for each editor w/ a user:name? And even more if they (don't) log in from different locations/IP's? hrmmm...)--Albedo 08:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You're on 'er, yer honour. Sleeep gooood...--Albedo 09:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

leave

User AcpasNorol wants to leave the wiki (see edits). I think he was blocked before, are old spamaccounts still blocked? --92.202.37.191 13:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal

Thanks for cleaning up after me, including the formatting on the joining page. --The Architect

Deletion Policy

Redirects serve two purposes - links from other articles, and Searches. These fit under neither category, or none that also fit other policies (like singular/plural article names). And a lot depends on what links to them - since most of these were orphans (or effectively so, any reference only being a conversation re deletion) what are the odds of a search?
Re plurals - I guess on one hand once they're there, they might as well stay, but they do set a bad precedent, and they are serving no good purpose except as an undesirable crutch.
As far as "bizmuth bronze", that's a terrible precedent imo - do we start allowing any and every misspelled word to be "redirected"? If it's regional (armour/armor) or a common confusion (adamantium/adamantine) I support it 100%, but misspellings? Bleh. Remind me to make a redirect page for the metals iorn and steal, and sliver and goaled, among others. Double bleh.
Personality modding was someone's pet project that was never started beyond posting the (almost blank) page, and abandoned and forgotten by late '07, not updated until user:I2amroy copied/pasted the entirety of the personality page onto it without further comment. It had no links except on 2 user pages, one where we were recently wondering "WTF IS this?", and another that's listed under "old forum links". Since the page itself was 2 years old, and has nothing that the original didn't... I think it's another that could get trimmed without loss, as the odds of anyone typing in "personality modding" are slim to none.
So my position is "Lose 'em all, no one will ever miss them, and it's a cleaner site without" - but that's my opinion - the final policy is up to you.--Albedo 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

.... Er, I really meant if you still disagree, I'm more than willing to continue discussing what
 the appropriate course of action should be over any editorial policies we may have on this wiki.

Nah - I'm opinionated and vocal, but that's not the same as being always adamant in that opinion nor believing that means that I'm "right" (nor always spoiling for an argument/fight, some evidence to the contrary). I've voiced my point and the reasons behind it, and I believe you've weighed that (Respect) - so if in your estimation it doesn't wash, that's all good by me. (In this case.) ;) The policies are a collaboration as much as the content itself, and we've held to that process. So, until next time... ;D --Albedo 23:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

graphic gone missing

, from the pump page, is MIA. I have no idea why or how, she gone.--Albedo 09:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote page - Karl's recent deletion constitutes vandalism

Karl is continually removing any and every quote I add to the quote page while leaving alone anything added by anyone else. Ie, he's clearly attacking me rather than trying to improve the quote page. This behavior is strikingly aberrant especially because he seems to be in favor of keeping any other quote no matter how bad.

I've acted in good faith to improve the quote page, and am trying to participate in a dialog about the other deleted quotes which I honestly don't feel belong on the page on their own merits. He's judging quotes i've added solely on the basis that I added them. He's also deleted other quotes i've added previously, and appends his recent changes summary with smilie faces as if he thinks he's being funny. This amounts to vandalism pure and simple. Needless to say, this is unacceptable behavior.

--Squirrelloid 16:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: My attempts to talk with him about it on his talk page caused him to merely delete my text with no response. I hate to ask it, but i'm asking for administrative action - he's clearly incapable of separating personal from substantative differences. --Squirrelloid 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote I removed was based on the way you remove them, they were not grade-A funny quote. A taste of your own Medicine. You judge quote based on your biased opinion, saying they need to be funny, which is not the case, it's written nowhere on the wiki. You try to impose your own twisted sense of humor on this wiki. The fact no one cares about the quote make it hard to add them back, even if me and corona wanted to have some back, you opposed your veto, saying it was hardly a consensus.

You are by the way really condescending vs me and corona, talking about whining and all, did it ever occur to you that humor might be a personal taste ?

Oh, and by the way, it's unnecessary to copy/paste your rant on multiple page. --Karl 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As much as i hate to have a discussion with you on someone else's talk page

First, the discussions, while on related issues, served different purposes. Namely a referendum on the quotes talk page on those quotes versus talking with an administrator about the appropriateness of particular editing behavior.

Second, you're applying a different standard to quotes I've added than to other quotes on that page, which means you're targetting them because I've added them. Ie, exactly what I've said above. I doubt anything which I add you would ever consider grade-A funny, solely because i've added it.

Third, they certainly aren't quotes crafted by me - i've merely noticed them and decided they should be added. They deserve to be judged on their own merits. You're not hurting me by removing them because I added them, you're hurting the page, and you're penalizing the people whose material it was originally.

--Squirrelloid 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 :As much as i hate to have a discussion with you on someone else's talk page
 :First, the discussions, while on related issues, served different purposes.  Namely a referendum on the quotes talk page on those quotes versus talking with an administrator about the appropriateness of particular editing behavior.
-:Second, you're applying a different standard to quotes I've added than to other quotes on that page, which means you're targetting them because I've added them.  Ie, exactly what I've said above.
+:Second, you're applying a different standard to quotes I've added than to other quotes on that page, which means you're targetting them because I've added them.  Ie, exactly what I've said above.  I doubt anything which I add you would ever consider grade-A funny, solely because i've added it.
 :Third, they certainly aren't quotes crafted by me - i've merely noticed them and decided they should be added.  They deserve to be judged on their own merits.  You're not hurting me by removing them because I added them, you're hurting the page, and you're penalizing the people whose material it was originally.
 :--[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)