User:Scarecroe/Talk Archive 03

Archive of User talk:Scarecroe

Watch page
I know, I'll fix it. I make no promises about when I'll fix it. -- Danny Toughpigs 15:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no rush. For a while I've just been tossing stuff at the top because I don't know where else to put it. -- Scarecroe 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah -- the problem is the IP blocks, which we really don't need on that page, because we've got a link to the IP blocks list. -- Danny Toughpigs 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology
Speaking of being a remarkable person: Planet Koozebane. That's awesome. -- Danny Toughpigs 12:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like that one :) -- Scarecroe 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Subst
I picked up a trick a while ago from that "Thunderbird" guy that you can use too -- if you're typing in a template like Welcome, you can add "subst:" to it. That expands into the whole template when you save it, so when somebody edits the page next, they see the whole thing, and not just the template tag. It can help to fool new people into thinking that we're actually writing to them, instead of plugging in a template. So it looks like this:. Just so ya know. -- Danny Toughpigs 18:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Electric Mayhem songs
You're a remarkable person. -- Danny Toughpigs 17:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. That's all Jog. -- Scarecroe 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you plugged it into the wiki. So you still get credit. -- Danny Toughpigs 17:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew
What do you think about making Andrew an admin? He's really been stepping up and taking care of the wiki in a lot of ways. At this point, he probably cleans up vandalism more than you or I do, and he's been really involved in setting up new categories. He's also excellent at setting up talk pages and keeping communication going. I could easily see him as an admin. -- Danny Toughpigs 12:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was actually going to suggest that. Let's do it. Or, you. Because I don't know how to make someone an admin. -- Scott Scarecroe 14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I posted on his talk page; I want to get an amen from him before I do it.
 * I forgot how to do it too, but I just looked at Wikicities:Help:User_access_levels, which says to use the Special:Makesysop page. The Wikicities:Help:Administrators' how-to guide is also sporadically helpful, in a Wikicities kind of way. -- Danny Toughpigs 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Trogga
FYI: There's an interesting discussion going on at Trogga's talk page, about what's an admin responsibility and what isn't. You don't have to do anything about it -- I just wanted to point it out. -- Danny Toughpigs 18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

PWS
Guillermo posted a vandalism message on PWS' talk page last night. I don't think PWS is necessarily a vandal, per se, but G's right that he's violating some community norms. I posted about responding to talk page messages, which I'm starting to think is essential. I'm thinking about writing up a policy page about it. I don't want to make people think that they have to respond to every single thing that anybody says to them, but definitely if somebody is expressing concern or irritation, then people ought to feel obliged to say something. Not getting a response feels like the person is ignoring you, which just makes people angry. It feels like a violation of the spirit of collaboration.

What do you think? Should I do a policy for that? If so, what do you think I should say? -- Danny Toughpigs 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that's a really important thing. PWS is not the only offender. I guess just like with all our other policies, the trick is to be firm without being assholes about it. Maybe we could define an urgency system that flags the user as to how important it is that they reply. Like when you send an email with an urgent flag, or with a reply-request. Yeah, a reply-request is a really good idea. To help stress that it's an important part of keeping sanity in the community. -- Scarecroe 19:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a good thought. Definitely if somebody posts a question, then you should answer it. Warnings need to be answered. I'm thinking about posting a "Community Guidelines" page with this kind of stuff, and then creating a warning template that says, "You're violating the Community Guidelines," with a link to that page.


 * I'm also thinking about another system for dealing with back and forth stuff, but I can't think of a good name for it.


 * If you're going back and forth with someone on a page -- if something is changed, and then changed back, and then back again -- then there should be a guideline that you have to discuss it. Once you hit three changes, then it stops being something that you fight about on the page, and it starts being something that you have to discuss. Other people are also allowed to join in that discussion. If it's of general interest, it could move to the Community portal -- and eventually to a vote, if necessary.


 * So here's how it could work: We create a template for it, like a talk box but more urgent. When there's three reverts, you can post that box, and then post about the disagreement on the talk page. Once that discussion has begun, then the other person has to participate. If the other person doesn't respond, and just goes and changes it back, then they're violating a community guideline, and they get hit with a warning.


 * That's a system that could work, but we need a catchy name for it. You need to be able to say the phrase, and then everybody knows that's what it means. What do you think? -- Danny Toughpigs 20:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Loop Edits. Which is better than Volley Edits which I originally came up with. -- Scarecroe 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I mean a name for the process. Like mediation, but something that sounds less conflict-oriented. Argh. I need to think about it. I might just go and post on Current events about it, but I'll try to think of a name first. -- Danny Toughpigs 22:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe a time out? As in, I call a time out on this page. -- Danny Toughpigs 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, then we can put the offender in the corner with a dunce cap. And beat his knuckles with a ruler on second offense. I like this idea. -- Scarecroe 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Y'know what? I think we ought to change the picture on the talk box. And by we, obviously I mean you. I think the stop sign should be used for warning-type stuff -- the vandal template, and the new time out template. So we should have a different picture, in a different color, for the normal talk box. That way, there'll be a clear distinction between a talk box and a time out box.


 * In other news, check out PWS' talk page. I gave him a three-day suspension, which I'm sure he's just itching to turn into a 3-day suspension. -- Danny Toughpigs 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. I just changed it. -- Scarecroe 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's awesome! I love the new one. That's way more appropriate for the talk box anyway. Yay, yay. -- Danny Toughpigs 03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)