Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 114: |
Line 114: |
| | | |
| :So that's why I did it. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC) | | :So that's why I did it. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC) |
− |
| |
− | == Categories ==
| |
− |
| |
− | Hey, Merry Christmas!
| |
− |
| |
− | If I, or someone else creates an arguably useful category that you don't really like, would you please say so on the talk page, so that we can discuss it, as a community. I agree that two entries doesn't make a category, but there are several more than two comics about Internet arguments. The topic itself is very specific, but it is also recurring indeed, just like [[:Category:Velociraptors|raptors]]. As for Flowcharts, I'm sure I know 5-6 comics containing them, just top of my head. That surely should be enuff? (At least get rid of the [[:Category:Axiom of Choice|Axiom of Choice]], if you are to be ... [[:Category:Puts on sunglasses|::puts on sunglasses::]] ... consistent.) ;) Swedish greetings from [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 14:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :By that logic, I am now justified in reorganizing the entirety of [[:Category:Dynamic comics]]. I hold up that as an example of exactly why I stopped opening this up for a discussion and started ruthlessly cutting down our category count. In general I go by a simple rule of "Huh, I wonder if there are other comics on this topic?" which is why, many moons ago, I created the [[:Category:Axiom of Choice]] (created when we didn't have so many categories, and no one batted an eye at having a category with only two comics in it). This is why I think [[:Category:Internet]] is a very good category, and that Internet Arguments was not. Now, maybe I would have felt a little more lenient if it was <nowiki>[[Category:Trolling]]</nowiki> but that's because it's not so specific as to only be a handful of comics (and now that I say that out loud, I think there's quite a few that would fall under trolling).
| |
− |
| |
− | :This is because, as the wiki has come into its own, the mainstay editors have decided (and I'm the only one to vocalize it) that the categories a page has is not a traditional blog tag cloud where you simply vomit out everything that the comic contains. We use the categories as a way to "find similar" comics.
| |
− |
| |
− | :It really rankles me to have deeply nested categories, like [[:Category:Set theory]], but I'm willing to leave it there because I can see people coming by the site, reading a comic in Set Theory and wanting to read all the other ones on the same topic. Though I would greatly prefer it if it wasn't deeply nested, if it was simply parented to [[:Category:Comics by topic]] and then had a See Also section.
| |
− |
| |
− | :As for Axiom of Choice, I still believe that it's an odd enough thing to have in a comic, anyone browsing through might want to see other comics that make reference to it, but I'm open to deleting it.
| |
− |
| |
− | :--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 00:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::Thanks for your answer. I think i mostly agree with you. Especially on that it should not be a tag cloud "to vomit out everything that the comic contains", but to find related ones. So at least no comic should be alone in a category.
| |
− |
| |
− | ::I've been thinking that, while Internet might be a reasonable category, it is not in any way remarkable that the topic "Internet" recurs (of course it does). From that viewpoint it is much more interesting when e.g. the Axiom of Choice returns. The comics becomes much more tightly related, and that piece of information should doubtlessly be given in the wiki! I can think of two ways: by making a category, or by linking to the other comic(s) from the explanation page.
| |
− |
| |
− | ::Since one can argue that set theory is a subdicipline of logic, a subdicipline of math, or neither, i just, without thinking too much, linked to (added) the category from all those levels. Maybe "See also" would be better. Why not?
| |
− |
| |
− | ::Lastly, I must confess that i didn't get the "dynamic comics" part. If you were making a good point, please spell it out.
| |
− |
| |
− | ::-- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 11:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::Ages ago (I believe it was when we were first working on getting the explanation for [[Umwelt]] fleshed out) there was talk about what do we want to categorize it as. Someone, brilliantly, added an "Out of the ordinary" category, and did the same to [[961: Eternal Flame]], justifying that amid 1000+ comics these ones were truly odd, and broke the format (an animated gif and a comic that was different for nearly anyone depending on where they were, what browser they were using, etc.) that xkcd generally followed (geeky discussions, charts, and the occasional [[:Category:Large drawings|large drawing]]. Some other editors, that didn't quite understand, went into the back catalog and started adding other comics as being "out of the ordinary" such as [[Money]]. This ignited another conversation about what makes something ordinary, what makes it extraordinary, out-of-the-ordinary, the difference between the three, and why we have to have the majority be ordinary so we can have an out-of-the ordinary.
| |
− |
| |
− | :::Then Randall published [[Click and Drag]]. Amidst the insanity of everyone frothing at the mouth to completely, totally, and summarily flog that horse until it was dead three times over, it was put into the category "out of the ordinary" and then someone created an "interactive" category, and someone else put Umwelt into it. Then there was an edit war, and a conversation (about why we need to clamp down on new categories, what constitutes out of the ordinary, why Umwelt isn't interactive, and moaning that people should stop the edit war until a decision had been made) was started. It was cut short when [[Traffic Lights]] was posted and one of the editors went rogue and cleaned up "interactive comics", and moved "out of the ordinary" to dynamic comics. It's slowly morphed from there to how we currently have it set up today.
| |
− |
| |
− | :::Anyway, months ago I tried to start a discussion that none of the categories/comics should be part of a "Dynamic comics" parent category because none of them are "dynamic" they are very static. Since then I've been promoted to administrator, but I haven't touched it because, even though I may be a [http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/BOFH.html BOFH] at times, this is still a wiki, and I can't right every wrong simply by wielding the sword of righteous indignation.
| |
− |
| |
− | :::And that's all for storytime today. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::::I think this is gonna be good! First, i don't know if i have anything to add about the dynamic stuff. But if no one seems to disagree, why not give it a shot? I wouldn't mind if you changed the nestings in math/set theory either. :) To get back to the "by topic", if i may:
| |
− |
| |
− | ::::If two comics connect by some interesting topic or reference, I'd think it's neatest to just link them together with a note at the end of the explanation, like someone did to [[994: Advent Calendar]] also about Zeno, from the last comic. (I added a similar note in 994). Zeno might or might not come back, but anyway it's nice that you can click a wikilink and read another Zeno-joke. If it's a third comic about Zeno, we ''could'' do the same thing, (slightly more complicated, since we'd want all three to link to the other two), or consider a category. If it's suddenly four Zenos, well... What do you say? :) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 17:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::::Sorry, I lost this tab, but I just found it again. Exactly. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
− | ::::::Great! Hope you had a good day at church! :) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Sections in talk pages ==
| |
− |
| |
− | Since we/you don't want sections in talk pages, how should we suitably structure the discussions? Where do you think I should answer on the probability thing (latest comic)? On the bottom, or in the middle of the page? {{unsigned|St.nerol}}
| |
− |
| |
− | :As I've said many times, simply commenting in a threaded chronological order is all that needs to happen. Chronological dictates that all new comments go at the bottom. Threaded dictates that if you are responding to a comment you indent one from the comment you are responding to. Together this means that a discussion starts at the far left, and the responses continue downward and rightward.
| |
− |
| |
− | :This is only for explanation talk pages, as it breaks the way that sections work through the transclusion of the talk page onto the explanation. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
− | ::Thank you very much for clearing that up for me, supporting me in the discussion and, hrm, signing my question! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::Yep. I'm here to keep discussion civil. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 00:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ==Two images to delete==
| |
− | A couple of users ran into a conflict with a KDE desktop file on the server when trying to upload today's comic. Here's two broked images to delete [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=File:tar_xkcd.png][http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=File:tar-1168.png] '''[[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
− | :Oh, and another one from a while ago when a user ran into a map stored on the server. People mess up so much when they're trying to make new explanation pages. [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=File:amazon_1165.png] '''[[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::{{done}} [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::And a botched redirect made by a newbie: [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1120:_Bridge] '''[[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::{{done}} [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 19:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == "Unacceptable username" ==
| |
− |
| |
− | Hi,
| |
− |
| |
− | Just wondering, what does the "Unacceptable username" user-blocking reason refer to? (apart from the fact that these users closely resemble users ready to spam...)
| |
− |
| |
− | Just being curious. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 14:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | : Maybe it's just that you don't know what else to put when blocking a highly suspicious account? In which case you could add a reason in [[MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown]], something like "User account suspicious compared to spamming schemes" (or a better phrasing than this one, which I'm not too sure of...).
| |
− | : Thing is, I don't see what's wrong in choosing for instance "Zbenjamin89" as a username. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 14:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::You're right. I'm using "Unacceptable username" with the implicit subtitle "spammer-like username". I've been putting it on some of the block messages. I'm only blocking usernames that were created in blocks, that are suspiciously similar to known spamming accounts, and have no contributions despite the account being created hours before. If any one of them comes back and posts on their talk page, or gets in contact, to prove they are human I unblock them. So far, none of them have.
| |
− |
| |
− | ::I got tired of having to clean up spam, and it seems that blocking these accounts that are created, left to sit for a day or a week, and then activated to spew absurd amounts of spam, has helped in some small measure. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
− | ::
| |
− | ::: So, what about adding a dedicated reason to [[MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown]]? (with the right permissions, I'd have done it myself)
| |
− | ::: As I said, I'm ''not'' blaming you for being the "BOFH" here (love that one ^^), I think that these blocks are useful indeed. I just feel the same thing could be done more intelligibly: someone stumbling upon one of those blocked accounts, or on a log, wouldn't understand and could deduce wrong things out of this. For instance, if you blocked a legitimate account among spammers (seems quite plausible, and in a way, unavoidable), it would not help the user to understand what the problem is, and chances are he would not try to fight to get his "unacceptable" username accepted by an environment he doesn't really know about...
| |
− | ::: So, I believe adding a block reason is very quick and would be better. Maybe my previous phrasing isn't very good, then what about this simpler one: "User account suspicious, very similar to spamming accounts"?
| |
− | ::: [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 14:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Hi, ==
| |
− |
| |
− | I understand you had exams. Hope they went well for you! May I ask what you're studying? (Myself I have one week to the exam in {{w|multivariable calculus}}!) ––[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :Hi, the week before last I had a Physics exam (circuits, capacitance, AC circuits, Kirchoff's law, fun stuff), and last week I had midterms in both Discrete Mathematics (the most wordy math class I've ever taken, but it's about the only formal logic I've ever had, so I love it) and Operating Systems. I also had large projects due in both O.S. and a class called Elements of Computing Systems (The premise of the class is to build up a computer starting at {{w|nand gates}} and through multiple levels of abstraction eventually end up with a high level java-like language that compiles down to the machine language of the processor we "built"). It's all fun, but immensely draining. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 09:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == About your discussion on [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Coordination]] ==
| |
− |
| |
− | Those two IPs you were complaining about - that was me (I was using two computers so two IPs). At that time I was a bit of a noob and did all of those things because I thought that I wasn't doing anything wrong.
| |
− |
| |
− | Things have changed. I haven't made many new categories (just [[:Category:Bobcats]] and [[:Category:Crossbows]]) and I started using <nowiki>{{incomplete}}</nowiki> on comics that I either can't explain or am not confident enough to do so.
| |
− |
| |
− | I do not like the way that I was treated as an anon, because, in my opinion, the community {{w|Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers|bit a newcomer}}. Nobody posted on either [[User talk:72.252.145.183]] or [[User talk:207.204.86.3]] so I only discovered that my actions were not received very well when I saw an angry edit summary. That was not at all pleasant or friendly. --[[User:Btx40|Btx40]] ([[User talk:Btx40|talk]]) 19:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :Thank you for bringing your butthurt to me several months after the matter lay so dormant as to be forgotten by most parties (yours being the most notable, and to my knowledge only, exclusion). I assume you mean [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Coordination#Can we turn off page creation for non-logged in users]], I have posted many times to Coordination, but that one appears to be the only one you have concerned yourself with (again, Necro Bumping an 8 month old discussion). I'm sorry that you don't like the way you were treated when you chose to be anonymous to the regular editors of this wiki, and intentionally difficult to contact. And yes, being anonymous is more difficult to contact because at least 95% of all the anonymous editors we have know nothing about editing a wiki. Normally that wouldn't be bad, except when they continue to make poor quality edits ignoring any editor that "fixes" (my term) a page that they have edited and ignoring the format of any other page on the wiki. I have not yet had any anonymous editor respond to any post made on their IP talk page, which makes it pointless to try. It is the responsibility of any editor who knows anything to take responsibility for their edits by using their account. Anonymous editors have almost 0 accountability. Final point, edit summaries are not biting the newbie. They are grumblings in public. You will notice that my primary goal in that post was to try to shut off the flood of daily spam we were getting and slogging through.
| |
− |
| |
− | :Now that I've got my butthurt out of the way. You are correct. That post on the Coordination page was rude and out of line. I realize that now. But I hold onto my defense of hindsight always being 20/20. Back in September the site was almost complete anarchy, and the few of us that were regular editors wanted/needed the site to operate the same from moment to moment so we wouldn't lose our sanity. I apologize for being a little bit vicious toward you. But a lot of confusion could have been avoided if you had made an account and had made your edits using the account. I'm glad to have you with us, and I hope you keep on editing.
| |
− |
| |
− | :Sorry for the lateness of my reply. I take a long time to compose serious responses to matters that require serious responses. (Also, I hope you don't mind, I edited your post so that the categories would show up in the text, rather than being added as categories of this page).
| |
− |
| |
− | :--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Major changes on complete explains need a comment at less ==
| |
− |
| |
− | Thanks for your UNDO at [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1251:_Anti-Glass&diff=next&oldid=56854], major changes on complete explains need a comment. And smaller changes are simply better to understand by the reader. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :I'm slightly confused, are you thanking me, or asking for an expanded explanation of my actions? [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 22:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
− | ::I'm thanking you, when a user does change a complete explain he has to show a reason; if not a revert is a proper action. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Concerning the bot ==
| |
− |
| |
− | It's having a bad few days. It's been sick for a while, and it's having trouble getting to our servers. I sent it a get well soon card, but the error logs lead me to believe it's an ISP issue. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :How sad! I hope it isn't terminal. I'll have to send a care package with chicken soup and bits. I'll also have to go apologize to the (kind of) helpful user. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == New admin proposal ==
| |
− |
| |
− | Please take a look [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Admin requests#New admin|here]]. Cheers, [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 18:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == [[ 1358: NRO]] trivia ==
| |
− |
| |
− | Hi Lcarsos, is there a way where we can figure out that Hubble issue without an edit war? I did move that content to trivia and also did some enhancements on that content. I think Randall's work should be always mentioned at trivia if it does match the theme. Any thoughts? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :If anything this comic is more about {{w|Enemy of the State (film)|Enemy of the State}} than it would ever be about Hubble. Secondly, NASA and the NRO are VERY different departments of the US Government. One is forwarding the purpose of science, human advancement, and space exploration; the other is forwarding the goal of turning the US into a totalitarian police state (a small amount of hyperbole is used for effect) and the subjugation of the American people. Deciding which is which is an exercise left to the reader (lol). Thirdly, in the What If that's been linked shows that Hubble could never be used for this purpose, the focal range is too far out. Fourth, the What If and this comic are separated by more than a year's time, without any kind of proof that Randall had revisited the idea of Hubble taking pictures of earth there is 0 probability that these two pieces are connected by more than the fact that the same man made them. Fifth, we don't link to every other thing Randall has done on every page of this wiki, it would be ridiculous; and yet there are things that have a closer connection than these two. Sixth, several years ago Google, to improve Google Maps, started buying the rights to satellite photos with a resolution high enough to resolve objects less than 1 meter long. That was consumer grade technology several years ago. A government agency using the latest technology would have even better resolution, because designing a satellite that looks down instead of up means that you can build it to do its job.
| |
− |
| |
− | :Finally, not every page needs a Trivia section, and using a tenuous connection between two things, that could easily be served as a comment on the discussion page would be infinitely more desirable.
| |
− |
| |
− | :[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::Ohh, you did write this while I was creating a more general section below here. I don't like edit wars, so I'm talking to you.
| |
− | ::*I fully agree on your "totalitarian police state" statement and much more.
| |
− | ::*But comparing the best civil space telescope to a task even NRO is not capable of should be mentioned here. Of course this could be still enhanced.
| |
− | ::*Randall jokes about the accuracy of spy satellites. This is still unknown and has to be compared to current high tech machines like the HST is.
| |
− | ::--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Trivia sections in general ==
| |
− |
| |
− | Please do not miss my statement before this paragraph.
| |
− |
| |
− | At my understanding a TRIVIA section is a section doesn't belong to an explain but mentions comparable issues. Maybe I'm just a dumb German {{w|Besserwisser}}, but I'm not just a ''wise guy''.
| |
− |
| |
− | The common layout here is that the trivia section is below the transcript, ask David on this.
| |
− | t
| |
− | So, in conclusion: Anything doesn't explain the comic itself has to go to a separate section. And I would prefer a position before the transcript, but David doesn't agree.
| |
− |
| |
− | I'm looking only for the best explain for a s simple reader here.
| |
− | --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :Yes, trivia goes after the transcript because its content should be less important to understanding the comic than the transcript. This way blind people using screen readers will hear the transcript before tangentially related information.
| |
− |
| |
− | :What belongs in a trivia section are small (or meta) facts about the comic, or the time that the comic was written in. Things like, "Did you know that all the cancer comics came about because Randall's wife was diagnosed with cancer, so it consumed his life for a period of two years?". I would categorize most of these "trivia" things as general interest that are related to the comic but don't have much to do with the comic, or xkcd, or Randall. For example: on [[Su Doku]] I just took out a bit of trivia saying that hexadecimal sudoku games exist. While this fact is of general interest to geeky people, it did not explain the comic or the title text, it was not trivia about the comic. Had it been posted by the original author on the discussion page I think people would have commented with their favorite one, or asking for a link to a good one. That's the perfect place for it, somewhere that sparks a conversation on the topic that the comic covers, but not about the comic. The same is true about your post on the [[Chess Enlightenment]] explanation. While it did relate to chess, it didn't relate to the comic. Putting it on the discussion page would be a good place for that kind of content.
| |
− |
| |
− | :Adding sections makes an explanation look more complicated, and that's not what we want to do here. I'm not saying don't add sections, but seriously think about what kind of content you're adding, and see if there's all ready a place for it to go on the page.
| |
− |
| |
− | :[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 21:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::I agree on that what belongs to the trivia section, but I don't agree on your statement on what belongs not.
| |
− | ::Wikipedia says, that {{w|Stefan Zweig}} "...was one of the most popular writers in the world." Maybe not in the US. He flew from the German Nazis and committed suicide in 1942 at exile in Brazil; I didn't mention this at my post.
| |
− | ::The novella {{w|The Royal Game}} was instantly in my mind when I did read the title text, but younger people probably don't know.
| |
− | ::If that trivia adds are not welcome here any more I wish you a good luck on removing of hundreds trivia sections.
| |
− | ::And sorry, I think we have more serious issues here.
| |
− | ::--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::The novella is not trivia about the comic, certainly it has an association in your brain, which is why it is fully, completely, and totally acceptable in the discussion section. But, this is a website about ''explaining'' xkcd comics. It is not a general trivia website with an xkcd bent. We should make an attempt to keep the information we provide domain specific (and I'm not talking about URLs). We intentionally do not duplicate content that is on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is doing a fine job of housing its own data on its own.
| |
− |
| |
− | :::Those kinds of factoids have and are always been welcome, but they belong in a different place than ''creating'' a section that does not need to exist on pages. If we listed every random fact that was minorly associated with every strip, it would never be complete as there would always be cultures we don't know about with histories and stories we haven't read and heard.
| |
− |
| |
− | :::If you feel so strongly that there are more serious issues to address, then I suggest ''you'' get to work ''fixing'' them rather than making passive aggressive passes at the work other editors are working on.
| |
− |
| |
− | :::Thank you for the well wishes,
| |
− |
| |
− | :::[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 21:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::::No time yesterday, so I'm sorry for the delay.
| |
− | ::::*In general I do only a revert when I think an edit would have been the better explain instead a former revert.
| |
− | ::::*Today I did clean up the transcript of [[1360]] and copied the content of that crappy template [[Template:1360/list]] to the explain. That's still wrong, content is missing, I did just NOT a simple UNDO, I did work on that line by line. Costs time. What a rhyme...
| |
− | ::::*If you are an admin you should see my request and understand.
| |
− | ::::TRIVIA is still a matter on discussion, and I still can accept most of your edits. But sometimes a sidestep for non US people sould be possible.
| |
− | ::::--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− |
| |
− | == Attempt to break through an unjustified block ==
| |
− |
| |
− | I'm trying this because nothing else has worked. Your name appears as the agent who blocked my account, apparently mistaking my User page for spam, as noted at:
| |
− |
| |
− | http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:Ornithikos
| |
− |
| |
− | The page was an exact copy of my Wikipedia user page, which demonstrates a characteristic of visual perception and gives credit to the MIT professor who created the demonstration. You can see the unchanged original page at:
| |
− |
| |
− | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ornithikos
| |
− |
| |
− | I committed no infraction at all, and don't plan to. As evidence, see my Wikipedia editing record, which goes back to early 2010 and is visible at:
| |
− |
| |
− | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Ornithikos&offset=&limit=1000&target=Ornithikos
| |
− |
| |
− | I request that you restore my account, which I never misused. You can write me at [email protected] or on my Wikipedia Talk page: | |
− |
| |
− | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ornithikos
| |
− |
| |
− | Thanks,
| |
− | Ornithikos Paleologos
| |
− |
| |
− | :Sorry about that. You signed up before we had adequate spambot blocking measures. We'd ([[User:Davidy22]] and I) had noticed a pattern: a bot creates an account and then creates a user page and a user talk page with random gibberish and links to pages they want to up the google ranking of. Your account creation looked very bot-ish, especially since you didn't go and improve any explanations, or comment on a comic discussion page. Glad to know you're a person. I apologize for not looking closer at your case while cleaning up pages marked as spam. I hope you'll stick around and help improve the wiki! [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 06:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Bad Link ==
| |
− |
| |
− | I saw a strange comment by user E-Inspired and saw there was a talk page, only to realize he was banned. I looked through the “blocked” text and noticed a link to “make useful contributions”, which linked to {{w|Five Pillars}} using the code Wikipedia:Five Pillars. This demonstrated the page you were trying to go too quite well, but the actual page linked to was a disambiguation page, and not the actual page “Wikipedia:Five Pillars”. I believe putting a w| in front of Wikipedia: Five Pillars to create {{w|Wikipedia:Five Pillars|this}} should fix the issue. Not pressing but didn’t want to just let it happen. Thanks in advance! [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Edit War Policy? ==
| |
− | I would very much appreciate your advice and/or opinion regarding [[Talk:977: Map Projections#Wording disagreement]] - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 17:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls ==
| |
− | Is that deliberate? [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 11:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == User page ==
| |
− |
| |
− | Hi, I'm a new user and for some reason I cannot edit my user bio page or use my user talk page. I have not found an explanation for this and because you seem to be 'official' I thought I could ask you why and how to change it.--[[User:Obscure xkcd reference|Obscure xkcd reference]] ([[User talk:Obscure xkcd reference|talk]]) 20:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :Oh jeez, if I'm what counts for official... I haven't been active here in a hot minute.
| |
− |
| |
− | :Can you create any pages? Or is it just your User: and User talk: pages? [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 21:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :: Yes it is just my User: and User talk: pages. Is it some sort of spammer blocker or is it a bug? And how can I change this? (I know that you shouldn't start a sentence with 'and' but I can't find any other way to phrase this.)--[[User:Obscure xkcd reference|Obscure xkcd reference]] ([[User talk:Obscure xkcd reference|talk]]) 17:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::: I'm pretty sure, but I don't think it's in any of the admin pages I have access to, that there's a 3 day new account policy for creating a user page or a user talk page. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 04:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::::Thank you☺️--[[User:Obscure xkcd reference|Obscure xkcd reference]] ([[User talk:Obscure xkcd reference|talk]]) 19:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Spam Bot ==
| |
− |
| |
− | This user,
| |
− | [https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Explain_xkcd_server_admin&offset=&limit=500&target=Explain+xkcd+server+admin], is replacing entire pages contents with the word "crap." Been trying to revert their changes, but seems to be a bot. They've changed thousands of pages.
| |
− | [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.20|172.69.69.20]] 00:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Becoming an Admin again? ==
| |
− |
| |
− | Hi. After the recent explosion of vandalism, where I did a bunch of the cleanup, Jeff agreed to make me an admin, with a trial period of a week. As the week's end approached, I asked if I could continue, but Jeff never responded and my adminship lapsed.
| |
− |
| |
− | You're the only other bureaucrat on this system; would you mind restoring my Powers For Good? Thanks... -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 13:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | : No sign of either you or Jeff. I'll ask what I asked Jeff; if you swing by, would you please promote someone else to be a bureaucrat? Otherwise the next time there's a vandalism spree we'll have nobody to help us peons out. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 22:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
| |