User talk:Sparkit/Archive 01

From WWR

This is an archive. Please do NOT leave messages and questions for me here. Instead go here, Sparkit talk

Sparkit talk archives

To 03/20/06

03/20/06 to 03/24/06

03/25/06 to 04/09/06

04/10/06 to 07/10/06

07/11/06 to 01/09/08

01/09/08 to 05/11/08

Contents 1 Meeting here instead of there 2 Server to Computer change on EJ Page 3 Lexicon Vs. Glossary 4 One Quick Protocol Question 5 Headers 6 Uploading 7 You seeing deletion log in Recent changes?

Meeting here instead of there

Imagine meeting you over here instead of over there! I feel like I can be a little looser over here ... over there can be sorta scary for fear of making tremendous newbie blunders. But blunders here are no big deal. Just a chance to learn how to use revert!

Hiya, Jimbob! I, too, as you've seen on wikipedia, have been fascinated with wikis for awhile. I'm even considering dropping my blog and going wiki -- for the versitility, etc. Please ask me any and all questions here, there (wikipedia), in email or by phone. Lemme get a little more coffee in me then I'll look around and jump in. And here's an old adage to start the day, "He who doesn't make mistakes isn't doing anything." Sparkit 05:44, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

Thanks Sparkit! I really appreciate it. Yeah, I was thinking today how a lot of our blog stuff is better suited for this wiki. Not my personal opinions, but the more dry factual stuff for sure.

You could incorporate opinions by making an "Opinions" namespace or category. However, opinions do seem to me more suitable to a blog.

This thing was a snap to download and install and the setup procedure was very well documented.

I've been wondering how easy/hard it was. WordPress has been easy for me, except the initial template/css stuff, but I've got that all worked out now. Thanks for the opportunity to learn some of the syops stuff here with your wiki!

About the biggest problem is that none of the pages come pre-built. Kind of shocking since it means we have to build our own help files. I know I could export the Wikipedia help files then import here but after looking at their files, they're too customized for their site. I couldn't find any 'standard wiki help files' anywhere to import so maybe we'll just keep ours as links to theirs.

Not so surpising. Documentation for most open source stuff is kinda haphazard. I did find something at Help contents that isn't so focused on the wikimedia projects. (Jeez! what a bunch of confusing names -- mediawiki is the open source software and wikimedia are their implementations.) There's also a project creating public domain help files, but there's not much there and it looks like a rather slow moving project.

Wouldn't ya know, I can't think of any questions right now except this ...

I know how that goes!

since this is your discussion page, I assume I put it on my watch list to see if you write back? IOW, people put stuff they're actively working on in their watch list, but once they have no reason to expect any more action on that item, they remove it from their watch list? I guess that means checking your watch list frequently is pretty important right?

On wikipedia folks do it various ways, and usually state their preference on their user and/or talk page. The most common preference is to respond on both user pages -- yours and mine -- which is that you'll find me doing.

You can certianly monitor discussions the the watchlist way. On wikipedia I use my watchlist to watch articles I care about. I also use "Related changes" with some categories. WWR is small enough right now that I'll probably just use "Recent changes".

I have got to get some sleep now though. This stuff is addicting!

Jimbob 05:53, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

It's addiction rating is right up there with WWR. ;) Collaborative and interactive sites fascinate me. Sparkit 09:58, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

Server to Computer change on EJ Page

Oh this is fun! My first knock-down dragout fight with a collaborator! You rolled back my change but I think the change is important. Here's why.

Now what? (Hehehehe ... this is partly just a friendly experiment to see how we go about resolving disputes in wikiland).

Aw, no fair! You rolled back your change before we even had a chance to shake our fists at each other.  :-) Jimbob 18:27, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

LOL... This won't be knock-down dragout, though we could pretend one. (For some odd controversy see Surrealism on wikipedia. I think the hot stuff is in Archives 5 and 6.) Anyhow, the phrase in the EJ article had neither the word "computer" or "server", I picked server. I'm not attached to either word. I understand the importance of the distinction. I suppose I could whip up an argument about how the computer does serve server functions You may not be running "server" OS either. The rollback was my test of the the Rollback link. I'd never used it before. Sparkit 18:39, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

Gotcha. Yeah, I spent several hours looking at the "Daily Request For Deletions" over on Wikipedia (sorry, too lazy to go find a link to the page) and it was pretty interesting. At first I didn't understand why Wikipedia would ever delete articles unless they were in grossly bad taste or ads, but after seeing many of the sites they wanted to delete for Not Notable, I see their point. Obviously, I was interested in seeing the whole request for deletion cycle on J-Walk's page. I'm glad we've got this wiki going here because WWR would probably qualify for NN on Wikipedia - especially since a few folks thought J-Walk's blog, which is much better known than WWR, was NN. Jimbob 18:48, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

Lexicon Vs. Glossary

Okay, I think I see where you're headed. Lexicon is mostly for terms found exclusively on WWR right? Glossary will be for more generalized terms. Ohhhhhh ... I like it! I sat here for awhile trying to think of how to do that (which was why I got rid of my mispelled acronym) and I think you've shown the way. (unsigned by Jimkloss)

Yeah, like that -- EJ, Wheatberries, Foop, etc. Lexicon and Glossary could both go in a bucket (category) named Terminology. Sparkit 18:46, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

One Quick Protocol Question

BTW, don't feel like you have to respond on your discussion page then go to the trouble of copy-paste into my discussion page just so I'll see it. I'm starting to get used to using Recent Changes and just scanning for the User Talk namespace.

Here's my question and I'm too lazy to check the Wikipedia guidelines...when you are writing an entry and use a linked term like WWR many times, is it appropriate to just link it the first time it's used and not again in the same article? Seems to clutter the page if I link WWR all over instead of just using WWR. But if experienced wikipedians say it's best to link it whenever it's used, then I'll do it that way.

I don't mind the copy/paste routine. I like the message flag, too. Just let me know what are your druthers.

It's a matter of style. WWR wiki can set whatever style guidelines the users (or Bureaucrat God. How does it feel to have the title of Bureaucrat? tee hee.) want. I think of the links thing as along the same lines as using acronyms (now you got me wanting to put in a second "n") -- spell out the term first, then just the acronym on second reference and thereafter. I don't like pages with links to every other word. It looks cluttered and over-techie to me. Sparkit 18:57, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

Headers

Oh, and here's another one. I read somewhere on Wikipedia that it was frowned on to use Level 1 headers (just 1 = ). I was wondering why that is? There are occasions when I really want a BIG header followed by a lot of smaller ones. Is the reason just so people will save using Level 1 for special purposes or is there some more sinister reason I'm not aware of?

I have no idea the reasoning on that. They do look too big to me, so that might be the issue. Maybe it is so they can be used for special emphasis, like you suggest. I don't recall seeing them used on wikipedia. (unsigned by Jimbob)

While we're talking about headers. I'm accustomed, from both working newspapers and wikipedia, to using sentence case for headers. (i.e. "This is a header". Rather than "This Is A Header".) Your preference appears to be to use title case. I'd like to make a pitch for using sentence case. Hmmmmmm... I better do more than just say I want to make a pitch. It's is easier to read, and a more common style in newspaper and book publishing. Sparkit 19:07, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

This has got to be the most satisfying internet experience I've had in months. Not only did I not know they were called 'sentence case' and 'title case' but I never gave much thought to my habit of using title case. I agree with you. I'll try to break the habit but it's pretty automatic so correct me when I flub up. If the Recent Changes becomes filled with enough 'sentence cased headers' summaries then I'll really get the idea! :-) And please let me know about any other formatting errors I tend to make on a regular basis. I am a lousy visual designer and can use all the tips I can get. Jimbob 19:31, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

Uploading

Thanks for implementing file uploading. I'm more likely to write documentation if I can add pix. BTW: Can we copy Philip's help pages here? Sparkit 20:15, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

Yup and thanks for showing me how to specify thumb|right. Um, I'm sure Phillip wouldn't have a problem with it. I'll catch him the chat or fire off an email and let him know we're doing it. Hmmm...our first opportunity to figure out how to do, um, isn't it called attribution? I assume you've done it before on Wikipedia and maybe it has a standard format like (Thanks to [[Phillip]] at [http://www.steelwhitetable.org Steel White Table] for the original documentation) or something akin to that. Jimbob 20:24, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

You're welcome! I'm disappointed it doesn't add the box and caption like on wikipedia. Oh well, lots of stuff there is special code. We'll figure out something. The thumb part might not be necessary. You can control the size by adding another pipe and a width. (!200px).

Yes, attribution is the correct term. A style guideline could be developed for that. The most important part is giving the attribution. Sparkit 20:31, 16 March 2006 (AKST)

You seeing deletion log in Recent changes?

Are you seeing stuff like "(Deletion log); 12:52 . . Jimkloss (Talk | block) (deleted "Template:Parody": going to institute a standard doobie - content was: '' (and the only contributor was 'Jimkloss'))" in the Recent changes? I don't know what special stuff I see as bureacrat (yeah, I just love that term) and was wondering if Sysops see it too?

Mornin' sunshine. Template:Emot wink I do see the deletions in recent changes. One log I've not found is a "new user" log. Do you see that info, or know which log it's in? Sparkit 13:34, 19 March 2006 (AKST)

I still haven't gotten coffee yet. That's how addicting this thing is! I haven't see anything specific about new users in Recent Changes but wasn't looking for it. Mostly I think I've just been looking for the big bold N for New items. Not sure if new users show up automatically with an N when they logon - guess probably not. Been too busy to keep up with new users. Hey, I know, I'll make you a bureacrat so you'll know you have access to absolutely everything. I'm no longer alone here in the Oval Office! Jimbob 13:51, 19 March 2006 (AKST)

Oh no! The last thing I want to be is a bureaucrat! At least in the traditional sense. Now I can't tease you about it anymore. Go get some coffee! Sparkit 13:55, 19 March 2006 (AKST)