Heroes Wiki talk:Administrators - Revision history

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* New Seasonal Gallery format Example (collapsing/expanding) */

2008-11-13T15:17:35Z

New Seasonal Gallery format Example (collapsing/expanding)

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:17, 13 November 2008
(No difference)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* New Seasonal Gallery format Example (collapsing/expanding) */

2008-11-13T15:17:35Z

New Seasonal Gallery format Example (collapsing/expanding)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 13 November 2008
Line 17:		Line 17:
	==New Seasonal Gallery format Example (collapsing/expanding)==		==New Seasonal Gallery format Example (collapsing/expanding)==
	Hey guys, drop by [[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer/New Seasonal Gallery Example\|here]] and tell my what you think of my new idea on standardizing seasonal galleries in effort to maximize space use and effeciency. <small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer\|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer\|talk]]) 11/12/2008 09:20 (EST)</small>		Hey guys, drop by [[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer/New Seasonal Gallery Example\|here]] and tell my what you think of my new idea on standardizing seasonal galleries in effort to maximize space use and effeciency. <small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer\|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer\|talk]]) 11/12/2008 09:20 (EST)</small>
			* I'll reply at [[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer/New Seasonal Gallery Example]]. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 10:17, 13 November 2008 (EST)

imported>HiroDynoSlayer: Administrators: New Seasonal Gallery format Example (collapsing/expanding)

2008-11-12T14:20:08Z

Administrators: New Seasonal Gallery format Example (collapsing/expanding)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:20, 12 November 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:
	**Thanks for the clarification, Ted. "Emotional manipulation" does seem to be a popular choice, but I'm being pretty vocal about my objection to it. "Bliss and horror" also seems popular, though not as much so. I don't see a need for a move. But as I said above, if other admins feel strongly that it should be moved, I will put down my guns and put up a white flag. :) (Incidentally, let's at least wait until after Joe Kelly's interview, just in case he has anything more to say about it, though I do think that his take on the power is quite enlightening already.) -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:58, 26 June 2007 (EDT)		**Thanks for the clarification, Ted. "Emotional manipulation" does seem to be a popular choice, but I'm being pretty vocal about my objection to it. "Bliss and horror" also seems popular, though not as much so. I don't see a need for a move. But as I said above, if other admins feel strongly that it should be moved, I will put down my guns and put up a white flag. :) (Incidentally, let's at least wait until after Joe Kelly's interview, just in case he has anything more to say about it, though I do think that his take on the power is quite enlightening already.) -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:58, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
	** I also think either sensation manipulation or emotion manipulation is speculative as to how the power works. We don't know whether he alters sensations, causing an emotional reaction, or whether he alters emotions, causing a psychosomatic reaction. Bliss and horror does not speculate as to how he causes either bliss or horror, and makes it clear that he's confined to either positive or negative swings, as we've been told.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:13, 26 June 2007 (EDT)		** I also think either sensation manipulation or emotion manipulation is speculative as to how the power works. We don't know whether he alters sensations, causing an emotional reaction, or whether he alters emotions, causing a psychosomatic reaction. Bliss and horror does not speculate as to how he causes either bliss or horror, and makes it clear that he's confined to either positive or negative swings, as we've been told.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:13, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

			==New Seasonal Gallery format Example (collapsing/expanding)==
			Hey guys, drop by [[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer/New Seasonal Gallery Example\|here]] and tell my what you think of my new idea on standardizing seasonal galleries in effort to maximize space use and effeciency. <small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer\|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer\|talk]]) 11/12/2008 09:20 (EST)</small>

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Fan Creation Changes */

2007-07-21T02:37:09Z

Fan Creation Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:37, 21 July 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	**I'm for getting rid of the "Added by" line, but the page itself seems like a way for people to express their creativity. If we took it off, then it would be a free-for-all, which I can foresee being an issue. So I think the short fix would be just adding the kid's name to each thing he/she changes. Big picture, I don't really see the need for the page, but if it's a way of fans expressing creativity, they should have some "ownership" of their ideas.--[[User:Baldbobbo\|Bob]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)		**I'm for getting rid of the "Added by" line, but the page itself seems like a way for people to express their creativity. If we took it off, then it would be a free-for-all, which I can foresee being an issue. So I think the short fix would be just adding the kid's name to each thing he/she changes. Big picture, I don't really see the need for the page, but if it's a way of fans expressing creativity, they should have some "ownership" of their ideas.--[[User:Baldbobbo\|Bob]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
	**I've been biting my tongue thusfar, but I actually hate the "Added by" line with a passion, and have for some time. It seems very counter to the whole nature of a Wiki.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 22:20, 20 July 2007 (EDT)		**I've been biting my tongue thusfar, but I actually hate the "Added by" line with a passion, and have for some time. It seems very counter to the whole nature of a Wiki.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 22:20, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
			***That's fine with me. We can axe it. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 22:37, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

	==Name Changes==		==Name Changes==

imported>Hardvice: /* Fan Creation Changes */

2007-07-21T02:20:31Z

Fan Creation Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:20, 21 July 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	* No, you're not being picky. Because there is an "Added by" line for each section, it sort of assumes quasi-ownership over each entry. I don't really care one way or another what's on that page, but I do feel that a person's contributions shouldn't be misrepresented. If I had my name attached to a fan power, I would feel pretty upset if somebody changed it around and it still said my name. (Changing it and not having any names is not big deal, as far as I'm concerned.) On a few of the major changes, I added Lobijo92's name to the "Added by" so it would be a bit more representative of the contributions. However, a simple way to take care of it is to get rid of the "Added by" line altogether. I'm not really sure why it's on there, other than because there were some minor edit wars when the page was first started, and I guess people wanted to have some form of ownership over their power. Seems silly to me. So the short answer is there's 3 choices, as I see it: roll back the major overhauls to others' contributions, add Lobijo92's name to the power, or just get rid of the "Added by" section altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)		* No, you're not being picky. Because there is an "Added by" line for each section, it sort of assumes quasi-ownership over each entry. I don't really care one way or another what's on that page, but I do feel that a person's contributions shouldn't be misrepresented. If I had my name attached to a fan power, I would feel pretty upset if somebody changed it around and it still said my name. (Changing it and not having any names is not big deal, as far as I'm concerned.) On a few of the major changes, I added Lobijo92's name to the "Added by" so it would be a bit more representative of the contributions. However, a simple way to take care of it is to get rid of the "Added by" line altogether. I'm not really sure why it's on there, other than because there were some minor edit wars when the page was first started, and I guess people wanted to have some form of ownership over their power. Seems silly to me. So the short answer is there's 3 choices, as I see it: roll back the major overhauls to others' contributions, add Lobijo92's name to the power, or just get rid of the "Added by" section altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
	**I'm for getting rid of the "Added by" line, but the page itself seems like a way for people to express their creativity. If we took it off, then it would be a free-for-all, which I can foresee being an issue. So I think the short fix would be just adding the kid's name to each thing he/she changes. Big picture, I don't really see the need for the page, but if it's a way of fans expressing creativity, they should have some "ownership" of their ideas.--[[User:Baldbobbo\|Bob]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)		**I'm for getting rid of the "Added by" line, but the page itself seems like a way for people to express their creativity. If we took it off, then it would be a free-for-all, which I can foresee being an issue. So I think the short fix would be just adding the kid's name to each thing he/she changes. Big picture, I don't really see the need for the page, but if it's a way of fans expressing creativity, they should have some "ownership" of their ideas.--[[User:Baldbobbo\|Bob]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
			**I've been biting my tongue thusfar, but I actually hate the "Added by" line with a passion, and have for some time. It seems very counter to the whole nature of a Wiki.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 22:20, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

	==Name Changes==		==Name Changes==

imported>Baldbobbo: /* Fan Creation Changes */

2007-07-20T21:30:39Z

Fan Creation Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 20 July 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:
	We have a new user -- [[User:Lobijo92]] -- making mass changes to the [[Fan powers]] page. While updating other people's work with regard to canon material is perfectly normal, I have issues with someone changing fan-created content in the same way (although normal corrections to spelling, grammar, and punctuation are fine). Should we roll back those changes and put some kind of policy statement in the "fan creations" template about altering other fans' work? Or am I just being picky? --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)		We have a new user -- [[User:Lobijo92]] -- making mass changes to the [[Fan powers]] page. While updating other people's work with regard to canon material is perfectly normal, I have issues with someone changing fan-created content in the same way (although normal corrections to spelling, grammar, and punctuation are fine). Should we roll back those changes and put some kind of policy statement in the "fan creations" template about altering other fans' work? Or am I just being picky? --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
	* No, you're not being picky. Because there is an "Added by" line for each section, it sort of assumes quasi-ownership over each entry. I don't really care one way or another what's on that page, but I do feel that a person's contributions shouldn't be misrepresented. If I had my name attached to a fan power, I would feel pretty upset if somebody changed it around and it still said my name. (Changing it and not having any names is not big deal, as far as I'm concerned.) On a few of the major changes, I added Lobijo92's name to the "Added by" so it would be a bit more representative of the contributions. However, a simple way to take care of it is to get rid of the "Added by" line altogether. I'm not really sure why it's on there, other than because there were some minor edit wars when the page was first started, and I guess people wanted to have some form of ownership over their power. Seems silly to me. So the short answer is there's 3 choices, as I see it: roll back the major overhauls to others' contributions, add Lobijo92's name to the power, or just get rid of the "Added by" section altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)		* No, you're not being picky. Because there is an "Added by" line for each section, it sort of assumes quasi-ownership over each entry. I don't really care one way or another what's on that page, but I do feel that a person's contributions shouldn't be misrepresented. If I had my name attached to a fan power, I would feel pretty upset if somebody changed it around and it still said my name. (Changing it and not having any names is not big deal, as far as I'm concerned.) On a few of the major changes, I added Lobijo92's name to the "Added by" so it would be a bit more representative of the contributions. However, a simple way to take care of it is to get rid of the "Added by" line altogether. I'm not really sure why it's on there, other than because there were some minor edit wars when the page was first started, and I guess people wanted to have some form of ownership over their power. Seems silly to me. So the short answer is there's 3 choices, as I see it: roll back the major overhauls to others' contributions, add Lobijo92's name to the power, or just get rid of the "Added by" section altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
			**I'm for getting rid of the "Added by" line, but the page itself seems like a way for people to express their creativity. If we took it off, then it would be a free-for-all, which I can foresee being an issue. So I think the short fix would be just adding the kid's name to each thing he/she changes. Big picture, I don't really see the need for the page, but if it's a way of fans expressing creativity, they should have some "ownership" of their ideas.--[[User:Baldbobbo\|Bob]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

	==Name Changes==		==Name Changes==

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Fan Creation Changes */

2007-07-20T21:13:31Z

Fan Creation Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, 20 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Fan Creation Changes==		==Fan Creation Changes==
	We have a new user -- [[User:Lobijo92]] -- making mass changes to the [[Fan powers]] page. While updating other people's work with regard to canon material is perfectly normal, I have issues with someone changing fan-created content in the same way (although normal corrections to spelling, grammar, and punctuation are fine). Should we roll back those changes and put some kind of policy statement in the "fan creations" template about altering other fans' work? Or am I just being picky? --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)		We have a new user -- [[User:Lobijo92]] -- making mass changes to the [[Fan powers]] page. While updating other people's work with regard to canon material is perfectly normal, I have issues with someone changing fan-created content in the same way (although normal corrections to spelling, grammar, and punctuation are fine). Should we roll back those changes and put some kind of policy statement in the "fan creations" template about altering other fans' work? Or am I just being picky? --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
			* No, you're not being picky. Because there is an "Added by" line for each section, it sort of assumes quasi-ownership over each entry. I don't really care one way or another what's on that page, but I do feel that a person's contributions shouldn't be misrepresented. If I had my name attached to a fan power, I would feel pretty upset if somebody changed it around and it still said my name. (Changing it and not having any names is not big deal, as far as I'm concerned.) On a few of the major changes, I added Lobijo92's name to the "Added by" so it would be a bit more representative of the contributions. However, a simple way to take care of it is to get rid of the "Added by" line altogether. I'm not really sure why it's on there, other than because there were some minor edit wars when the page was first started, and I guess people wanted to have some form of ownership over their power. Seems silly to me. So the short answer is there's 3 choices, as I see it: roll back the major overhauls to others' contributions, add Lobijo92's name to the power, or just get rid of the "Added by" section altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

	==Name Changes==		==Name Changes==

imported>Ted C: Fan Creation Changes

2007-07-20T20:28:29Z

Fan Creation Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:28, 20 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Fan Creation Changes==
			We have a new user -- [[User:Lobijo92]] -- making mass changes to the [[Fan powers]] page. While updating other people's work with regard to canon material is perfectly normal, I have issues with someone changing fan-created content in the same way (although normal corrections to spelling, grammar, and punctuation are fine). Should we roll back those changes and put some kind of policy statement in the "fan creations" template about altering other fans' work? Or am I just being picky? --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

	==Name Changes==		==Name Changes==
	* [[Bliss and horror]]: Are we prepared to make a call on this name change? I'm content with moving it to ''Emotion manipulation''. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 11:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)		* [[Bliss and horror]]: Are we prepared to make a call on this name change? I'm content with moving it to ''Emotion manipulation''. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 11:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

imported>Hardvice at 21:13, 26 June 2007

2007-06-26T21:13:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, 26 June 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:
	*To be more specific, I think ''Emotion manipulation'' is acceptable, not great. ''[[Bliss and horror]]'' is also acceptable. As my vote shows, I think ''Sensation manipulation'' is better than either, but still not great. I'm bowing to popular opinion because I don't see ''Bliss and horror'' as superior to ''Emotion manipulation''. What I really want to do is guage the opinions of the other admins and see if the "popular" choice has enough going for it to justify a move. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:36, 26 June 2007 (EDT)		*To be more specific, I think ''Emotion manipulation'' is acceptable, not great. ''[[Bliss and horror]]'' is also acceptable. As my vote shows, I think ''Sensation manipulation'' is better than either, but still not great. I'm bowing to popular opinion because I don't see ''Bliss and horror'' as superior to ''Emotion manipulation''. What I really want to do is guage the opinions of the other admins and see if the "popular" choice has enough going for it to justify a move. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:36, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
	**Thanks for the clarification, Ted. "Emotional manipulation" does seem to be a popular choice, but I'm being pretty vocal about my objection to it. "Bliss and horror" also seems popular, though not as much so. I don't see a need for a move. But as I said above, if other admins feel strongly that it should be moved, I will put down my guns and put up a white flag. :) (Incidentally, let's at least wait until after Joe Kelly's interview, just in case he has anything more to say about it, though I do think that his take on the power is quite enlightening already.) -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:58, 26 June 2007 (EDT)		**Thanks for the clarification, Ted. "Emotional manipulation" does seem to be a popular choice, but I'm being pretty vocal about my objection to it. "Bliss and horror" also seems popular, though not as much so. I don't see a need for a move. But as I said above, if other admins feel strongly that it should be moved, I will put down my guns and put up a white flag. :) (Incidentally, let's at least wait until after Joe Kelly's interview, just in case he has anything more to say about it, though I do think that his take on the power is quite enlightening already.) -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:58, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
			** I also think either sensation manipulation or emotion manipulation is speculative as to how the power works. We don't know whether he alters sensations, causing an emotional reaction, or whether he alters emotions, causing a psychosomatic reaction. Bliss and horror does not speculate as to how he causes either bliss or horror, and makes it clear that he's confined to either positive or negative swings, as we've been told.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:13, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Name Changes */

2007-06-26T20:58:41Z

Name Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 26 June 2007
Line 5:		Line 5:
	****I don't think there should have ever been a vote in the first place. If people vote for a name that is speculative, it won't fly. My comment above is just an answer to Ted and my own opinion--I'm not saying I ''have'' to be sufficiently convinced, I'm just saying I'm not convinced. Nobody is saying that you have to pass my consent to have a name change, but the name does have to be nonspeculative. It says right at the top of the [[Talk:Bliss and horror#Name Voting\|voting section]], "Note that the title that gets the most votes will not necessarily be the one chosen. The name will still have to be non-speculative about how the power operates and follow other standards and rules of the wiki. The admins will make determinations about whether a title is appropriate before implementing a change." If the other admins think another name is better, I'll relent. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:16, 26 June 2007 (EDT)		****I don't think there should have ever been a vote in the first place. If people vote for a name that is speculative, it won't fly. My comment above is just an answer to Ted and my own opinion--I'm not saying I ''have'' to be sufficiently convinced, I'm just saying I'm not convinced. Nobody is saying that you have to pass my consent to have a name change, but the name does have to be nonspeculative. It says right at the top of the [[Talk:Bliss and horror#Name Voting\|voting section]], "Note that the title that gets the most votes will not necessarily be the one chosen. The name will still have to be non-speculative about how the power operates and follow other standards and rules of the wiki. The admins will make determinations about whether a title is appropriate before implementing a change." If the other admins think another name is better, I'll relent. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:16, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
	*To be more specific, I think ''Emotion manipulation'' is acceptable, not great. ''[[Bliss and horror]]'' is also acceptable. As my vote shows, I think ''Sensation manipulation'' is better than either, but still not great. I'm bowing to popular opinion because I don't see ''Bliss and horror'' as superior to ''Emotion manipulation''. What I really want to do is guage the opinions of the other admins and see if the "popular" choice has enough going for it to justify a move. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:36, 26 June 2007 (EDT)		*To be more specific, I think ''Emotion manipulation'' is acceptable, not great. ''[[Bliss and horror]]'' is also acceptable. As my vote shows, I think ''Sensation manipulation'' is better than either, but still not great. I'm bowing to popular opinion because I don't see ''Bliss and horror'' as superior to ''Emotion manipulation''. What I really want to do is guage the opinions of the other admins and see if the "popular" choice has enough going for it to justify a move. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:36, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
			**Thanks for the clarification, Ted. "Emotional manipulation" does seem to be a popular choice, but I'm being pretty vocal about my objection to it. "Bliss and horror" also seems popular, though not as much so. I don't see a need for a move. But as I said above, if other admins feel strongly that it should be moved, I will put down my guns and put up a white flag. :) (Incidentally, let's at least wait until after Joe Kelly's interview, just in case he has anything more to say about it, though I do think that his take on the power is quite enlightening already.) -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:58, 26 June 2007 (EDT)