Talk: Tetris L/Archive2007-1

This is an archive of old stuff from Tetris L's talk page.

Builds categories

It is fun reading the talk pages every once in a while. Seems that nearly everyone wants to remove or cut the builds section nowadays. Well I trust that the status-quo bias of the wiki (which almost succeeded in driving me insane when I tried to get a builds policy for months) will frustrate all these attempts. But dont sneak cut the section by not listing Multi-Campaign builds in any part of the category tree, eg [:Category:Builds by campaign|here]. ;-) --Xeeron 11:58, 4 January 2007 (CST)

I didn't change the content of these categories, only the parent category, if you know what I mean. All I did was moving these categories from [:Category:Builds] to [:Category:Builds by campaign]. -- 12:42, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Hey, it's the man himself! Before you disappear can you tell me what you think (as briefly as you like) of GuildWiki:Build Split? I reckon it'd be really helpful and go a fair way towards calming everything down, but most admins and heavy users tell me it'd achieve nothing and isn't worth the effort... --NieA7 09:27, 5 January 2007 (CST)

I replied, very briefly, in GuildWiki talk:Build Split#Getting this Implemented, Or Not. And I'm afraight you won't like my opinion. ;) -- 09:39, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Hate to say it but I was actually talking to Xeeron rather than you :p And it's not really a case of disliking your opinion as just not getting it, to the point where I'm starting to wonder if I've missed something fundamental x.x Right now there's loads of friction behind the scenes of the builds. The shop front, however, looks good, and loads of people use it. Most the friction behind the scenes seems to stem from elitist PvP and PvE players going at each other hammer and tongs. Simple solution - give them both their own walled off playpen to toddle around in. Sure, it doesn't fix the policy problems as far as voting and whatnot goes, but it actually leaves us in a position where then can be solved (which, looking at both the discussion on the various proposed policy pages, and the way it's completely tailed off recently, seems very unlikely if things stay the way they are). --NieA7 09:44, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Blah dont mind me, some anon had wrongly removed the cats from [:Category:Builds by campaign], thus you forgot it when switching the structure. Somehow I didnt want to edit it myself, but of course that was childish, doing a small edit while browsing the build talk pages once every month wont change my stance towards the wiki.

Regarding the build split: Imho, it would ease things somewhat but misses the crucial point at which all conflicts start: The differing attitudes towards builds in the wiki. To many different people want to many different things from the build section at once. I once made it my task to get everyone to work together, but even if it looks like one big mess, it still seems to work somehow. I noticed even the untested builds are down. Don't give up on builds because of the (admittedly pretty constant) squabbling. My issue was (and from all I get still is) with Gravewit personally, not the wiki. --Xeeron 16:04, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Thanks for your thoughts Xeeron, it's always good to get the opinion of people who've been working closely with the builds :) --NieA7 08:43, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Build/Build Talk Namespaces

I noticed your request for a way to filter namespaces. It peeked my interest since the problems aren't going to go away anytime soon and it is starting to get annoying *rolls eyes*. I'm guessing you are currently choosing the Build namespace and checking the invert selection.

I did find an extension that will allow users to filter namespaces, though it's only implementable server-side and since it's dependant on the version of MediaWiki, might need updating as it was coded for an older version. All other ideas were shot down as well, as they also mean tinkering server-side. If you are also brainstorming an option to implement a filter on this side of the looking glass, let me know. I'll have more time this weekend to tinker and do some more research. Just letting you know your request did not go unnoticed. — Gares 07:55, 5 January 2007 (CST)

I think I first read Pan requesting something like this ages ago (well before the Build namespace existed). I personally don't like to think that admins would choose to ignore the Build namespace, it's a dangerous idea. Skuld is the only really active member of the admin team who gets into our builds and I think in the last couple of weeks a few things have become clear.

• It's a tough job
• Skuld is pretty determined to improve the quality of our builds
• The job is also getting to him at times and he hasn't always acted as well as he'd like
• He's getting very little support from his fellow admins (and I include myself here)

When I accepted my RFA I was a bit worried that I'd stop shaking my fist at an/the admins but I needn't have worried because here I am! I cannot speak for anyone other than myself on this but when I signed on as an admin it wasn't so I could do the easy or glamourous tasks (I'm not entirely sure what the glamourous tasks are, get back to me on that one!) and it's not a part time job, you have to consider what you're saying every time you post, it comes with the turf. I also don't think you can just choose to administrate the namespaces you like, our admins are not expected to be everything by any means but I don't think it's right to turn your back on the builds.

For example I disagree with some aspects of GuildWiki:Redirect and voted against it at the time. But as an admin, like the police it's my job to enforce our rules even if I disagree, I can't pick and choose. If you don't like our build policies start voting on proposals or suggest your own, but for me, ignoring them is not an option. Like it out not our builds are popular and account for a heck of a lot of our edits. I see it as having one admin for half of the wiki and all the other admins for the other half, honestly that's basically it in a sentence. I can't speak for anyone else but I do feel strongly about this... --Xasxas256 08:31, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Gares: I'd like to filter out Build, Build talk and User (but not User talk). I think the best solution would be if MediaWiki would offer an option to apply the same criteria to the recent changes listing that they offer for a search (see preferences). But since that's not the case I'm happy with any workaround. I've tried a few things, but have not come up with any ideas that work. I'm clueless.

Xasxas: It seems that pretty much all admins are currently unhappy with the state of the build section, even, or maybe especially those who put a lot of work into it, but nobody seems to be willing to push the necessary improvements and changes. I've never been among those who supported the section, I've always spoken against it, so I certainly don't feel obliged to help cleaning up other people's mess. ;) Well, I'm not an admin, so I'm free to ignore whatever I want. :) But even if I was an admin, I don't see a big problem with certain admins ignoring certain sections of the wiki. This is something else where we can learn from Wikipedia: That wiki is so huge that it would simply be impossible for all admins to monitor the complete wiki. They must specialize and concentrate on certain areas. I don't see why that shouldn't work on GuildWiki. -- 08:54, 5 January 2007 (CST)

I get in moods about the builds section, sometimes I think it's good sometimes it seems to be the bane of the place. I dunno, I've met some good people through there but at other times I feel like you see behaviour there that you don't seem to find anywhere else. I guess you can only be so possesive of your edit but you can be so much more so of your build. But if we didn't document something as common as IWAY, B/P in the tombs, SS/55s, SF Eles etc. I'd feel like as documentors of the game we wouldn't be doing our job. Of course then starts the debate over what exactly should be documented and there's pages on that stuff. I miss Xeeron! :( (Even if he did pop in here today.) If we specialise like that then I'd say we need more admins and Wikipedia is incomparibly bigger than GWiki. I don't think GWiki is quite that big yet. But mostly right now at this point in my life I wish it'd cool down, 1:30AM and it's still 28 deg, no wonder I'm mixed up and complaining so much :P --Xasxas256 09:14, 5 January 2007 (CST)

I should have also said that you can filter out whatever namespaces you like Tetris but if this server side thing is implemented then...you know...admins might start using it! I mean I figure some pretty much ignore builds as it is anyway but to actually filter them, I don't like that idea. --Xasxas256 09:21, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Xas, I think you mistook my post to Tetris as I would always censor out the Build and Build Talk namespaces. When I volunteered to be an admin, it was to fight vandalism with greater efficiency across all namespaces. Ignoring certain namespaces, myself, would be going against my ideals. Tetris requested a solution for himself and possibly other users to ignore certain namespaces and I chose to help him in his search. Not as an admin and not for my own reasons, but as a person who enjoys programming, problem solving, and helping others.

I have spoke my peace regarding the builds section in many areas and have mediated arguements between users regarding builds. I definitely am disappointed with some of the attitudes of certain users and I plan on dealing with that in my own way. Thankfully, it does not go against my ideals for any builds, as I only defend accepted policy and not any certain builds. And, yes, you will see my long-winded comments on certain proposals, most recently GuildWiki:Post No Builds.

As always, admins should be pillars for the community and their actions determine how other users react. An admin acts immature and inappropriate, others will follow. I'll leave that thought right there ;) They agreed to a duty of fighting vandalism, presenting themselves accordingly, and making sure the integrity of the wiki stays intact. None of us can honestly say we haven't slipped up once or twice however. We are human after all. Though when a mistake is made, it should be learned from and not committed over and over. Learning from mistakes not only applies to admins however, but to all users. — Gares 11:20, 5 January 2007 (CST)

You're great, Tetris is great, ignore me, I'm just tired and I think the builds thing is starting to get to me, I feel like we're fighting a losing battle. On a related note my house is full of ants at the moment, ants! How do you get rid of them! I'm waiting for the storm to break so it finally cools down, the ants will leave, my stress will go down and just maybe the build problems will resolve :| --Xasxas256 11:35, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Set the house on fire. Won't help much against the heat or the stress (let alone the builds section), but for sure it'll scare away the ants. ;) -- 11:53, 5 January 2007 (CST)

They're in the dishwasher now, how are you supposed to stop something that can get into watertight spaces! If I burnt down the house I think they're just find it easier to get around! --Xasxas256 12:14, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Have you tried to use Charm Animal on an Aardvark or an Anteater? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:33, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Heh, this made me think of The Ant and the Aardvark. In the German version the name of the aardvark was "Elise". That'd be the perfect name for a pet. :) -- 13:37, 5 January 2007 (CST)

I've tried Apply Poison but they seem to have natural resistance!! Actually funny you should mention Anteaters, in Australia we're more about echidnas called Rex! Is that what you were thinking when you said Charm Animal?! Is Elise as impressive as Rex!? :P --Xasxas256 21:38, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Well, I made a mistake.

I decided, after looking over the warrior guide, reading all the suggestions on the discussion page, and picking throught he guide for the wrong of it, to try fixing it.

I didnt get through the first stage of merging the guide I wrote (with illistrations) with the current content before some sewing circle noob came along and told me to tank with healing signet.

I say again. Political ... arena.

FYI: For quick reference, he's talking about Talk:Effective_warrior_guide#Hogwash. and User_talk:Bale_Thorn#Note:_Postings_made_on_talk_pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:22, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Everything I could say now has already been said in section Check that out! of this talk page. This is the same thing in a slightly different flavor. I have nothing to add. -- 11:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Treasure

Just checking ... is this still on the to-do list? I thought about doing it for you; but decided to see if the delay was for some variation you were working on. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:34, 26 January 2007 (CST)

No, I'm not working on it, I was just distracted by other things (real life, mostly). Go ahead! -- 15:46, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Done - thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 26 January 2007 (CST)