User:Mendel/Talk Archive 2

Welcome
Hi Mendel! I'm Isk8, I play GW too! All kidding aside, welcome to Gwiki! --   I~sk8   (T/C) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. mendel 06:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see that you've made an account. I was hoping you would. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This doesn't necessarily mean that I edit more, I'm still a casual player of GW and casual user of Guildwiki, but I thought it'd help if I got myself into arguments.... mendel 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG, Isk, you don't actually play GW??? d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 09:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Old talk about split skill...
... can be found here. mendel 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

well well
Its not often we get new members taking such an interest in the very goings-on in the wiki. Good job! :) &mdash; Warw/Wick 14:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I've been using the wiki for half a year now and doing occasional edits, so I'm not exactly new. Best way to get into it, too. I hope you're not too miffed about my wondering what your bot does. I'm sure my first attempts at botting aren't going to be smooth sailing, either. mendel 14:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd advise starting with somthing simple, like AWB (search wikipedia for it- Auto Wiki Browser), then moving on to more advanced stuff, and if you screw up with the advanced stuff, go back to the simple stuff! d-:. I've been using my bot for a number of things. Recently I've been doing testing about trying to give the bot its own "mind", as you can see from its randomized contribs list. Its not working very well d-: &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, without a Bot Flag (request here) you maynt run full-auto bots. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Viper hates the RC spam you get. :P &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says and how would you know? ;-) (mendel)
 * 'cuz viper told me ingame a while back ;p &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know by the RC spam, yes (HAAAATEEE). A bot really stands out as other edits are only singular edits, and irregular. If someone's crashing RC with exactly 4 edits per minute and exactly the same edit each time... --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * May, giving the bot its own mind, shouldn't that be tested offline? On an installation of Mediawiki on your own 'puter? We don't want it to take over teh Intarweb to erect an evil dictatorship, do we? mendel 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

.js
The part you copied from me is only good here for now --Gimmethegepgun 23:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you change your template to use pvp_ prefix instead of _pvp postfix, you can use it with mine. mendel 23:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Suffix. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 00:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postfix mendel 07:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I don't like it. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 07:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll suffix your suffix until you're suffix in the suffix. mendel 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't even think of a suffix that would fit in that context. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the role of policy
I noticed your discussion on the AN about Entropy's decision to deflag completely inactive Sysops. As far as the question about "the role of policy" is concerned, you might want to check out some of the Wikipedia essays in the "references" section on my user page (assuming you haven't already) and then for good measure read [http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Elections/2007-12_bureaucrat_election/Defiant_Elements#Possibly_the_best_thing_for_this_wiki.2C_and_he.27s_shot_down. this] -- by which I mean the discussion between Tanaric and Xeeron. This comment is predicated on the assumption that you're interested in the policy question; if not, ignore it. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  03:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm reading that now, it's a handy collection. Probably should be re-read once in a while. I'm going to collect some quotes here that I think serve my point - though arguing from (wikipedia) policy is not something I do lightly, and it's pointless as far as wikipedia policy is concerned: arguing from our own policies serves to identify where our own policies don't properly reflect community consensus (have you seen my comments on GW:ULC? Gah!). And of course they should, because it helps orient new members (such as me).
 * Frequently, we simply write down what already happens. (Last paragraph of Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Product%2C_process%2C_policy)
 * From your election talk: Never were policies justification for any action -- they merely reflected the common values the group already had. When new editors came to the GuildWiki, we pointed them to the policy portal so that they could see what our culture was like. (Tanaric)
 * Nothing what I read surprised me much. However, what is conspicuously missing from that is that policies are condensed history. Respecting a policy means willingness to learn from history. In the admin policy, theer are several sentences that deal with admins being admins for life and what that entails, so that's a strong hint that historically there was a need to express that consensus. Noone's (publicly) examined that consensus and whether the arguments for it might have a bearing on the current situation, and that's another thing that makes me feel slightly uneasy. But that may just mean that I'm the one to do the examining, then.
 * Thanks for assuming. mendel 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tanaric added much of GW:ADMIN on March 20th 2006, and there is no discussion on the talk page. So if there is a history behind that, it may be hard to find. mendel 09:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no discussion, but the policy's been cited a few times. I'd still have asked the admins in question to step down (rather than break policy); after all, they're the best judges of whether it's probably for them to return. Oh well. mendel 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific
Dont undo edits that were actually useful, only ones that did somthing wrong. for instance, shouldn't be reverted, nor should  to. :|. Its "Cleanup", not "Revert every change" 78.86.62.140 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have 300+ pages to revert in User:Talk alone. When I see in the history that the last edits were Maybot edits, I revert them unseen because I want to get the job done. The useful bot changes can more easily be redone by rerunning the bot than by me working by hand, I believe. That said, I don't usually do anything with the signature rewrites, so these should be ok. Where did you see these done by me? mendel 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But the point is the effort of it. From what I can see, "Go Go the ability to do two tasks in one" is the one that is useful, and "Bot Testing" or "Relinking as per Bot Tasks" is the bad summary. 78.86.62.140 17:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the GoGo makes wrong edits that delete information; it uses the DeleteLink template wrong, if I recall correctly. The only edits I trust are the signature rewrites. May I ask that wherever you revert my reverts (breaking policy yourself, btw) you keep the Maybot changes concerning the DeletdLink template reverted? Please read Cleanup_after_Maybot. mendel 17:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The GoGo is the one that does PanSola's sign. 78.86.62.140 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't normally revert that, but see above. Why does it break GW:SIGN? mendel 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The stuff that Marvin works on is easier as it allows a simple rewrite to fix the Maybot edit, and that leaves any subsequent changes intact. Except for the earliest dozen or so, I did have problems with those on User:, I believe. May possibly changed the bot programming but didn't change the summary. Maybe that should be required in the new bot policy: indicate bot version in the summary, and make a new version whenever the bot gets changed (even a tiny little bit). mendel 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple things:
 * The anon reverting your edit does not break 1RV, as each editor has only reverted once. 1RV is only broken if the same editor reverts something more than once.
 * It breaks GW:SIGN because signatures are not supposed to be transcluded. It's been mentioned off and on for a while now that old signatures that did use templates should be rewritten, but no one had bothered doing it yet.
 * &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)