User talk:Emi

Captcha

The wiki system is set up to autoconfirm a user after 3 days of existence as a registered user. Once that's done, you'll never have to enter a captcha again. (also, it's not possible, even as an admin / bureaucrat to manually add a user to the autoconfirmed group, sorry) --Briess 07:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Contact Info

I'm on IRC nearly every waking moment. --Briess 20:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:ArticleVersion

Two dozen consecutive edits? "Preview" just not a possibility?--Albedo 20:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

cv

So, forgive my continuing ignorance, but once the changeover happens, "cv" will then become whatever version 2010 is, right? And if so, how do we then distinguish between redirects appropriate only to the 40d legacy articles (which are currently being "corrected" using CV) and those that should go to the then truly "current version" 2010 articles?--Albedo 21:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

search terms and redirects

So a redirect chain like Gold bars -> 40d:Gold bars -> 40d:metal is correct, don't change it. Emi

Hi. I'm sure what you meant was to ask "Why did you delete that?", and not presume to lecture me about how redirects work. And my response would be - "Why did you create it?" Because I didn't "change" it, I deleted it - and there's a difference, and a difference in the reasoning behind each.

"Gold bars" is not really a term to link from, just not appropriate for a page title. It's not a term likely to be typed in to the search window, nor is it a wiki-article title in game terms. Gold is a perfectly valid (and existing) search term, and bars are as well, but not in the sense of "gold bars", unless you are constructing horizontal or vertical bars from a single bar of gold ("bars" of gold being distinct from a "bar" of gold, for better or worse). And it's not usually a policy to create redirects, even Search redirects, based on erroneous understandings of the layout of the wiki. (If so, "silver bars", "copper bars", "bismuth bronze battle axe" and "narrow giant cave spider silk trousers" could all be included by some well meaning user based on one User's example - and that's more work than I want. Or any Admin.) More, "gold bars" is plural, which breaks yet another rule. So why, pray, do we need it in the first place? Lastly, if "gold bars" were a valid search or redirect term, I would think it should redirect to either "bar", the item (to clarify what a "bar" is, gold or not), or "gold" (the material, to address that aspect), rather than metal, which doesn't address the actual term, but is only a generally related umbrella article - but that confusion gets back to the reason I deleted it in the first place. I didn't even notice it was you that had created that page, but if I had I would have asked you this before deleting it. So... since we're here, why did you see a need to create it in the first place?

And while we're on the subject, you seem to be fairly enthusiastic about redirecting every game term to cv:game term - even if they are NOT version specific. You may want to slow down before hitting every last one, since things like acronyms and such will then have to be tracked down and returned to mainspace existence. Several in the long, long list on Category:Obsolete seem more than a bit suspect, but I suppose now that it's done only the new version will prove them so or not. --Albedo 02:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's maybe a silly redirect, however, right now I am making sure 
these redirects all work properly

Use some discretion. I saw a page marked N(ew), and it didn't belong. If you recognize it as "silly", then don't go to the trouble to perpetuate it. And allow me to make something else clear that you should understand. Before you replace a page that Admin has deleted, you should ask them "why?" first. Thanks so much for your understanding on that last point.--Albedo 03:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Discretion only slows down serializable tasks like the one I was doing. It's much easier to follow the 
same pattern over and over and then go back and do all the stuff necessary to remove a silly redirect

So you are going to cover all those "silly" redirects that require it? Reassuring to hear - so long as someone has it covered, no problem then.--Albedo 03:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, because there's no real reason not to have most of these redirects, it's silly to bother  
checking each one before fixing them. If the admins at this wiki are of the "I'm an admin, so my 
word is law" attitude, I'm not sure this is a place I want to be.

If that were the case, I would have simply acted high-handed and slapped you and not explained my reasoning - but we both know I didn't, so I'm left wondering why you even mention it. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for your reason for replacing the page that an Admin deleted rather than asking them why they did it. Even if you were Admin, do you think that is a good approach to the situation?--Albedo 03:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you had deleted it until after I had recreated it. 

I see.

I ask again if you use either of those other communication methods...
it's much easier to work these things out in real time.

No, sorry. And as Admin of this wiki, I feel it's important to use this format to work these things out. Which (I hope) we've now done. Readya later.--Albedo 17:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot edit request

Could you change all of the non-namespace-specific article links in template pages to use template:L? This is going to be a problem soon. VengefulDonut 11:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

EmiBot's Standing Orders

Will it do that daily/hourly? B/c new pages are flying up without it. I agree it's overly long, and I thought about that, but it'll only be long for these first few days, until the immediate flurry has calmed a bit, then we back off. Right now, it's amateur hour out there, so any help is a good thing in those directions. (No automatic fixes? Urgh -that's a LOT of manual...) :P --Albedo 20:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I find myself waiting on an answer to my question while you focus on your own agenda - still waiting, thanks.--Albedo 21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Template

I explained my reasoning on the talk page, but in short: (1)The mod is not at all notable. (I am not willing to claim a notable mod would not deserve a page on its own, but this is a mod that adds 4 creatures and no one talks about - hardly deserving of a page). (2) There is only one relevant piece of information about this mod - where it can be found. (3) The page doesn't even include that information, and is thus useless. (4) A link to the mod on DFFD or its forum thread, and a very short blurb ("adds 4 new mega beasts") should be added to a general mod page if the mod is going to have a presence on the wiki. --Squirrelloid 05:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sure, i can do that. I honestly just took a stab in the dark that deletion was the right template, and didn't actually know there were options... la la la? --Squirrelloid 06:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Alloy3

I wasn't sure who to mention this to, and I apologize if it has already been noted, but this template is in use on 40d pages while the link built into the template for construction links to the "2010" namespace. Not sure what the best way to fix it would be, as I assume that the template will continue to be used. --Soy 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that! However, it looks like this is going to be an issue with a lot of the existing templates that are used across both versions. I think I see what your fix does and if I get some free time this evening I would be happy to try to update what I can find unless you can think of any negative impact it would have. -- Soy 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

nm

Yeah, I spoke before I read his talk page. And I remembered it as CMD. And he's right in that that's how it "should" be - the fact that it's not how it is in-game just an awkward DF reality. Altho', I see it as a style issue, not a coding issue.--Albedo 02:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I probably still would have argued for Cmd with a redirect from CMD.

That's not an issue to take up over one page - that's a global style issue, and would change the established, existing guidelines on Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Community_Portal. (Not that I wouldn't mind seeing some change, but (unsurprisingly) mine are style-based critiques.) --Albedo 02:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

JS

Thanks! :) Mason ^(T-C) 01:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

IRC

my firewall is dumb on windows, so I can't get on IRC, and I don't want to spend 3 hours figuring it out :( --Briess 04:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is. It took me about a day to figure out how to unblock port 80 >< --Briess 06:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ban required

Please ban 74.222.1.40
Thank you very much =)
Gretings --Used 08:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also 121.205.89.153. --Quietust 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Even better: semi-protect Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Centralized Discussion‎ so that only logged-in users can edit it. --Quietust 16:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Easiest of all: just go to Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Spamreport‎ and ban all of the bots listed. Whenever another one shows up, I'll let you know. --Quietust 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, i would've gone for a template that marks an ip, or user. Maybe like it being called UserReport, or Report, and then people could do the template thing to report a user. Not sure how that could be coded in, but it could allow administrators to be more warned and prepared to provide a look at the ip. To be honest, all these spambots are just strange. Also, deja vu, i could've sworn this happened in the exact same way before. Maybe another wiki... --Hugna 22:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)