User:Rogerhc/talk archive

Rogerhc | talk | talk archive

Temporary archive of done items from my talk page

Orientation
Hi Rogerhc, could you please discuss such major changes to the categorization first? See also Project:Forum where I've moved your new project page to. Thanks -- :Bdk: 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Manual is a good category name. Category:MediaWiki technical reference or Category:MediaWiki technical documentation or similar is bad because it is hard to type and have it come out exactly the same every time -- hard to use, too many likely permutations. I asked about this several weeks ago on a talk page (I deleted my question yesterday though, see diff: http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk%3AMediaWiki_configuration_settings&diff=35952&oldid=31556 ). No one replied. So I changed the few instances of Category:MediaWiki technical reference (not even sure if that is what it was) to simply Category:Manual. :-) Rogerhc 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bdk, I would like to discuss these things about Mediawiki.org with whoever cares about them. Glad to have found you. Could you suggest a good place to discuss these kinds of things? Thanks! :-) Rogerhc 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, we've got the forum as our main place to discuss such issues (and more or less #mediawiki on IRC). It's not very effective to post questions on single category talk pages or so on this (still low traffic) wiki, as it is noted on several places ;-) An alternative is to post questions on HappyDogs or my talk page for the time being (there's nothing like a community on this wiki yet).
 * Hmm, Category:MediaWiki technical reference hasn't existed, there are no deleted revisions, don't know what you mean. Long names make sense when they are very clear, you only need short names for the main or "head" categories …
 * Please note Project:PD Help to learn about the aim of the help namespace in contrast to the manual one. Also, we'll move all MediaWiki related stuff from Meta in here later this year, I hope. So the main namespace has a different aim than the manual one, too. And we still have a lack of information about these plans, I know :-) Anyway, I'm off now. Regards -- :Bdk: 01:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip about Project:Forum. Also Project:Current issues talks about organizational issues. So I put a link between those two pages at the top of both. Leadership and action is needed so that this site can become an effective documentation wiki for MediaWiki. Thanks for your help! --Rogerhc 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Preview
Roger, is there a possibility that you use the "show preview" button more often, and maybe also use the "summary" field for major changes at least on relevant pages? Histories like this one are really unpractical for others; persumably also for yourself, later ;-) Greetings -- :Bdk: 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bdk, thanks for the tip. I will give Preview button and Summary field a try. --Rogerhc 04:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great :-) -- :Bdk: 22:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm
Hi Roger, this is a mess, could you please use the preview? Thanks -- :Bdk: 10:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it is very hard to follow what is going on when a page has had 25 edits by the same person. Please try and avoid this history spamming! --HappyDog 13:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing above refers to the many edits I did last night in creating the Help:Tables page. I am trying to use the preview button whenever practical instead of just the save button, as Bdk suggested earlier. Thanks Bdk. I can learn lots from you guys. My contributions to the wiki are always sporadic with many interruptions from my primary responsibility -- my available time comes in minutes and moments of unpredictable length. I don't want to lose my work. So I save it often. The Help:Tables page took a few hours of this kind of time to write. Preview shows me what my page will look like but does not safeguard me from losing it. Please let me know any tips and tricks that will help me do these contributions in a community friendly manner. Thanks for your patience and support. --Rogerhc 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, if I am worried about losing a long edit I periodically paste it into a text file and save that on my desktop, deleting it once the update is saved to the wiki. That's what I did on User:HappyDog/Hub-based Main Page, for example.  There would probably have been about 100 edits if I'd saved it every time instead of using the preview function.  Sometimes it's unavoidable, however a good edit summary usually mitigates the problem, as it tells other people what you did.  For example, it would have been useful if your last edit on this page had an edit summary like 'moved preview discussion up page'. Also, there are times when it is sensible to make multiple edits.  For example it was right that you did the textual change and the move as two separate edits, as it would be quite hard to see what has changed if it is also moved at the same time. --HappyDog 18:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Wiki writer will work... :-( I'm looking for a offline WYSIWYG Editor for the Wiki Code for a long time. And I didn't found any stable/ released software until now. :-( --The0bone 09:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator status
Per our email discussion, you've been promoted. robchurch | talk 23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Site structure
Hi Rogerhc. I see you've been working on the site structure a bit, and have been doing some good work. I've been away for the past couple of weeks, so have not had a chance to reply to any of the points raised on the Current Issues page, but will do so properly over the next couple of days. I have some ideas about making the whole site easier to navigate, which I will raise there - I'd be interested in your input. I look forward to working with you and the other interested parties in making this site a proper home for MediaWiki. --HappyDog 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Roger - do you mind if I call you that? I have come up with a redesign of the main page that I think you might be interested in. It may have some impact on the navigation redesign you are currently working on. It is at User:HappyDog/Hub-based Main Page, with some notes in the associated talk page. I look forward to your comments. --HappyDog 01:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you (Re: Support)
Thank you very much for moving my request for account renaming to the right place and especially for notifying robchurch of the matter. —Dto 01:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox
This is yours now: User:Rogerhc/Sandbox ;-) -- :Bdk: 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PD Help
Could you please move Project:Help back to the much clearer original name Project:PD Help immediately and fix the corresponding links? The category renaming seems to be ok, but not to eliminate the deliberate title of the project's name. These things were discussed pretty well before.

Frankly speaking: Watching your uncooperatively and often imprudent work on this site is really frustrating. I'm not far from asking for desysop. -- :Bdk: 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is better Project:Help and it was hard work to make it so. I don't see the value in undoing this. Better is better, and less confusing. The redirects are there. However, it is frustrating to be frustrating members who have done as much work on this site as Bdk has here. Bdk, I apologize to you for this frustration I have caused. I'll lay low for a while and try to avoid causing further frustration. I am not prepared at this time to undo this work however. Please bear with the name. Clarity and simplicity have their place in this wiki. I apologize for the frustration. Thanks for your feedback. --Rogerhc 01:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bdk on this. Please see my comment here.  The problem is not your ideas, which are sometimes quite sound, but the way you have waded in and assumed that no-one else has put any thought into the layout of this site, moved everything around without discussing it (plus in once case deleting actual content) and repeatedly ignored calls for discussion, with seemingly very little idea of what the aims of the site actually are.  Please do not make any more structural changes to this wiki without discussing them and getting a concensus.  I have moved Project:Help (which should give help about the project) back to Project:PD Help (information about the PD Help) and would appreciate it if, as a sign of good-will, you would do the same for the international versions of this page (along with updating the relevant links).  The new category names can be left as they are, at least for the time being.  --HappyDog 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to help. I have replied as clearly as I can - please see my reply on Category_talk:Help. :-) Thanks! --Rogerhc 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds: (I know, this is an unsolicited comment, but ... it's a wiki, after all, so c'mon everybody, "EDIT EVERY PAGE!") I experience the exact same challenge as you experience, Rogerhc.  Regarding MediaWiki web resources, I see a lack of clear, unambiguous structure.  There's unrelated, related, and unique stuff all over the place, and worse, at three different locations:
 * MediaWiki (the software): http://www.MediaWiki.org/
 * Wikimedia Foundation (the company): http://www.Wikimedia.org/
 * Wikipedia (the project): http://www.wikipedia.org/
 * Some of the best support for MediaWiki (the software) is NOT on MediaWiki.org, but I find it on Wikipedia.org! What to do, what to do?  Like you, I also try to implement structures I've seen and worked with for years on other web projects.  Like you, I then get slammed by a couple of people with "ownership" attitudes saying little more than, effectively, "that's not what I was thinking, so YOU must be belligerent".
 * If MediaWiki support was so well organized, then folks wouldn't be frustrated trying to find things. Since its NOT, and since such lack of organization is not really denied - see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2007-June/021237.html for an example:
 * "... This is an ongoing problem that's well noted; 
 * all documentation used to be bundled together on 
 * Meta wiki and a lot of it's still stuck there. A lot
 * ''of it can't just be imported to MediaWiki.org
 * because, to be brutal, it's crap..."
 * ... then why not let every visitor try their hand at it instead of slapping their hand when they do try in good faith?
 * I suggest putting the supposed or intended organizational scheme right on the front page at MediaWiki.org. That's a challenge!  Who wants to try?  =8^o  Until then, may I suggest people read:
 * http://www.webworksite.com/articles/article4.php
 * "...Instead of taking offense, you should thank each
 * and every one of the people who take the time to
 * complain about something on your site that didn't
 * work for them. For every complaint you receive, you
 * can bet there are at least dozens of visitors who
 * have thought the same thing but didn't take the time
 * ''to tell you about it [and never return!]. And, if no
 * one tells you, you have missed the opportunity to
 * fix it for everyone. Don't shoot the messenger and
 * alienate the very individuals who obviously like
 * your site enough to want to help you improve it for
 * them... thereby improving it for everyone else..."
 * ...before responding to anything they think are mere "complaints", PLEASE! And then say, "thank you," whenever they bump into a surprise contribution.  May I also suggest that people sit back for a little while, and let it resolve itself.  Don't be in such a hurry to delete user contributions.  The more one person does to police and negate the contributions of others, the more that person gets cranky, self-frustrated, and self-immolated.  Cool off, back off, and let the vacuum of your (benevolent, please) inattention get filled by other volunteers, like me and so many others who have so much to offer, but get slammed and go away, never to return!  Argh!
 * I think there's a truism to the fact that wikis grow most when so-called "authority" and security are invisible, where anonymity is not an impediment to immediate contribution, and patience, tolerance, acceptance, and equivalent consideration are a well practiced virtues.
 * - Click! Love and hugs, Peter Blaise peterblaise 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)