User talk:Ilde

From Discworld MUD Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Issues with knowledge that shouldn't be on here

Frazyl is currently updating the poisons on here, detailing how they, and gasbombs, are made. This is very restricted information within the Assassins guild, especially the Conlegium Sicariorum. As such I STRONGLY believe that this information should not be allowed on the wiki at all. It is guild policy that only assassins of gl300 and higher are allowed to read the books with the exact recipes in them. If the info is provided here it would be in direct opposition to that policy and as such is interfering with the way we run our guild. I'd already removed the recipes previously and had also said to Frazyl that the information is not available to most players and therefore is not fit to include here. As he seems to be going ahead with supplying this restricted info with no thought to our guild I am therefore obligated to contact other administrators of the wiki to see if this blatant disregard for restricted knowledge can be stopped.

Riannon


Hey there!

I just wanted to say "Thanks!" for all the work you did with the infoboxes and links on my weapons pages. They look great! :D

-TherionAndAlts 16:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :D --Ilde 19:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin

Assuming no one opposes, would you be interested in becoming an administrator? Rehevkor 04:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure! It mainly involves banning spammers and protecting pages, right? --Ilde 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There! Rehevkor 02:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Wheeeee! :D --Ilde 02:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Prebox

Hi!

Can you please give more details on how the new version of Template:Prebox was working worse? It seemed better (if not perfect) than before, only missing newlines which never worked with prebox but preventing other wiki auto formatting from changing the output.

For example, changing History_-_The_Great_Skills_Change to use prebox (in the preview because the endlines don't work in any version) is horrible with the old template, with lots of sub-pre boxes and format issues like dashes showing up as lines instead of dashes, white space is not respected... While the new one was close to the <pre> output, only lacking the <br> at the end of lines.

Just trying to see if I could possibly fix whatever was less good with the new template while a more final approach is considered. --Frazyl 23:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's easy: it wasn't working at all. Lines weren't being wrapped, resulting in side-scrolling (massive side-scrolling for pages like Delusions of Grandeur, which is where I noticed it). If you saw it working with long lines, maybe it's partially a browser issue; I'm using Firefox 3.6.
Maybe you could make a new template for experimenting with? That way it won't break pages that use the existing one. --Ilde 00:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Uh oh, didn't see that. It's weird, I'm on Icecat which is a rebranded Firefox 3.6 so it should be the same... Maybe I just didn't see it at 1280x1024.
The annoying thing with template though is that to test it you can't just preview it with a test in <noinclude>, it just doesn't work.
Well I guess we can keep it as is for now, I'll just add back the transcluded documentation. --Frazyl 01:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Could be your screen resolution, yeah... I think most places where it's used aren't for super-long lines, just ones that overflow a little bit.
Oh, good idea... I missed that bit. :O --Ilde 02:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Navboxes

Yeah, it looked a bit big to me too, I'm still working on it :\

From my point of view, the way I use navboxes is that I'll come to a page, say for a skill, and then want to see related pages (but maybe not EVERY related page). I feel like the list of commands and the list of skills are the most important things in the navbox, specifically because they're sets of lots of different pages that are all related (in this case, thieves might want to compare the requirements for learning all their lockpicking commands, for example). It's just a coincidence that the list of commands and the list of skills are both so long and unwieldy.

I was thinking of moving the list of skills to a subnavbox that is automatically hidden so it doesn't take up so much space, but first I need to figure out how to get hidden navboxes to work. I know that the "v|d|e" functionality was borked and had to be hacked around, so I might end up doing the same here if I can't get the wiki syntax to cooperate.

Wensleydale 10:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but for finding related pages, the "See also" section is the ticket... that way you can link to related pages without also linking to a lot of unrelated or dubiously-related ones. (For comparing learnt-at levels, you want to look at Commands (possibly the information should be duplicated elsewhere, but I'm going to bed after I finish this and I'm not inclined to mess with it right now)... and I'm not sure it would be a good idea to put learnt-at information in navboxes, anyway; it would really bloat them up.) As for linking to skillpages, from skillpages, the infonav boxes let you navigate the skill trees already.
You could just take the list of skills out entirely; it's a little redundant since the comparison of primaries is already linked to. If you feel it's really useful, though, then leave it in. You might look at Template:Multiinfobox, since that deals with hiding and showing things. I cobbled together a straight hide/show thing out of it about a month ago:
Click to hide text Click to read text
Here is some hidden text.
Click to hide text Click to read text
Visible text goes here.
Hidden text goes here.
The tabs would probably be undesirable, though...
--Ilde 11:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess what I was trying to say was that having the skills in the navbox could allow different people who visit the same page to leave in different directions relevant to their interests. If a thief and an assassin both visit the same page, they're going to want to look for skills related to their guild. Sticking every other thief and assassin skill in a See Also section just runs them all together (while taking up even more space than the navbox) and redirecting the reader to the Covert Skills page still doesn't tell them what skills are relevant to their guild. Redirecting them to their class skill list is fine, but every navbox can be obviated by redirection to a page full of links and then we might as well do away with navboxes entirely.
I'm done fiddling with it for the day anyway, I gave up after trying to figure out why every navbox title is shifted 50px right of center and still having no luck with normal hiding. Sorta really wish we had Wikipedia's template resources :\ I'll take a look at the tabbed box tomorrow, that might be perfect for a navbox just for the skills of different classes so that I could take the skills out of the main box with a clean conscience.
Wensleydale 11:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Mmm. Well, you could always just make some categories for skills--Category:Cutpurse primaries, Category:Hunter primaries, etc (If you do, I suggest only putting the categories in Category:Thieves' Guild, not the individual skills... it's tidier). Although I don't think would add much more utility than already exists in the links to guilds that have the skill as primaries. (I wasn't trying to suggest that you should link to other skills in the See Also; I meant that would be a good place to link to commands that don't use that skill but are related to it somehow.)
I'd also like to point out that linking to every skill that any thief has as a primary (i.e., with the navbox and its links to skills) is still running several sets of primaries together. So, the navbox shows the skills relevant to their guild as a whole, but not really to them, personally, since they certainly don't have all twenty-five skills as primaries. If they don't know what their primaries are, they'll still have to go to another page to see... and if they do know what their primaries are, the whole excercise is a little pointless.
Navboxes are useful in some places... they just don't need to be on every page that's tangentially related to what they're about, or they turn into clutter.
--Ilde 03:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiggum

Erm, why are you making user pages for other people? --Ilde 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not? --Tiggum 06:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your own user page is for putting stuff about yourself, notes, and other miscellaneous stuff on. Other people can do what they want with theirs. So if you don't even have a reason to edit someone's user page... don't. --Ilde 07:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
There's some more though: User:Wobin, User:Dasquian, User:Frailbeth, User:Kefka, User:Taepha, User:Calis, User:Chimara, perhaps more not as Tiggum.
--Frazyl 07:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Could only find User:Rig as possibly another one with quotes from an ip user. --Frazyl 08:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
...Well, I guess if it's waited this long, it can wait until morning. (Frailbeth has been the only one I've been able to catch online, and she said she a)doesn't know why he did it, but b)doesn't mind that being her page, so I guess that's one that doesn't need deleting.) --Ilde 09:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
ETA: Have mudmailed the other people, at least the ones who were mailable, and left notes on Wobin's and Rig's talk pages. --Ilde 18:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
ETA: Heard back from Kefka; he doesn't mind his. --Ilde 18:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
ETA: Heard back from Taepha, who doesn't mind hers. Haven't heard back from anyone else so I've deleted the remaining ones (though obviously if/when I do hear back from people saying they want theirs restored, I'll do that). --Ilde 17:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Spoke with Grimrak this morning. He wasn't aware of his profile being edited, but as it had been deleted already he couldn't check. He would have been okay though with general finger info. --Gunde 10:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I guess you can't see deleted pages unless you're admin. I've mudmailed him with the previous contents to see if he wants it restored. --Ilde 18:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with this. People's user pages are their own, and they shouldn't be created without their permission. Rehevkor 13:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rev, wiki users create their own wiki user pages, they're not meant for other people to post stuff about the user, and especially not about the character / player. If wallsy wants to post quotes or stuff, he can post on his own site(s). We don't have "player" pages, user pages here should be for users of the wiki who want to say something about themselves, not generated for mud users generally! --Zexium 13:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
And now I'm thinking we need to block anon edits in user space? --Zexium 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That might be a little awkward... I think the last few instances, at least, of anonymous users editing user pages were just people editing their own pages without logging in. (...There were a bunch some time ago that were spammers, but as far as I remember they weren't specifically targetting user pages, and the captcha seems to have mostly taken care of that problem.) --Ilde 00:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I got the impression you'd been deleting malicious user: space page edits. Maybe I was wrong. In any case, (1) Wiki user: space is for wiki user info, not mud user info (2) If tggmborg wants to post quotes by mud users, he already has free space in this domain to do it, it doesn't need to go in their wiki user: space (3) user: space generally is for the wiki user, not for other people to write about the mud user. --Zexium 01:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The spam stuff didn't seem to be particularly targetting the user: space over other things (usually going after all sorts of uncreated pages--talk, research, and main not-yet-created pages), and it seems to have dropped back drastically now that there's a captcha. It would have helped some, but it wouldn't have eliminated the problem, and it's too late now, anyway.
As for this issue... preventing anonymous edits would be somewhat tangential, since he was logged in for most of those. For another thing, changing the wiki settings like that--interfering with a legitimate activity[1] in the process--to deal with one user's actions seems a bit overkill.
[1]Editing your own page while logged out, I mean. The "last few instances" I was referring to were Chimara blanking his own page while not logged in, before I deleted it entirely, and Frailbeth adding a note to hers (at least, I assume it was her, since it happened right after I talked to her). I don't see anything wrong with that kind of thing, even if people could just log in in most cases.
--Ilde 05:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocking anon edits would have too much collateral damage. If we weren't going to do it for the incredible amount of spam we were getting, doing it for this would be over-kill. Rehevkor 18:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it not possible to block anon edits to user pages without blocking them globally? --Zexium 18:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's possible, but it looks like one of those things that only Drakkos could do. It still seems a bit pointless to me to block anonymous edits because of something a (mostly) logged-in user did. --Ilde 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Millie Hopgood

Hi, Ilde! I went to make a page for Millie Hopgood but noticed that one existed in the past and was deleted, and now the page is protected. Is it okay to create that page or would you prefer it be left empty? If the powers that be don't want a page for Millie, should I try to unlink forwards I find? Thanks for your time. -Kymtastic (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2017 (EST)