User talk:WolvenSpectre

Prima16

• Regarding your Theories edit, who's saying Prima16 is "Leet" for "Primate?" I have to admit, that's quite a stretch. If they were going for "Primate" in "Leet" then it would have been "Prima73." :) (Admin 22:36, 24 January 2007 (EST))
  • In "1337" the "7" can be the "L" and the "1" the "T" (not noticeable in Arial) so it could be correct, but "6" is rarely "e" -73^37 03:28, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Incorrect email notifications

• Hey, WolvenSpectre. Would you be willing to forward that incorrect email notification you received to me at admin@heroeswiki.com? It would help me track down the problem you reported. Thanks! (Admin 11:44, 27 January 2007 (EST))
  • Just send them to the email address in my previous comment here. (Admin 09:42, 1 February 2007 (EST))
    • Checking the email it says "See ... for all changes since your last visit." It also says "There will be no other notifications in case of further changes unless you visit this page." So when you click on the link you'll see that user's changes plus any subsequent ones. I also think it will only email you once for a page until you login next. So don't think of it as an email notification when any user edits the page, but instead just a notification that the page has changed since you last logged in. I can see how it's a little confusing in a way. The email notification is about one particular change, but the link it provides shows you ALL changes since you last logged in. (Admin 12:43, 4 February 2007 (EST))
    • Theres the rub... I never log out. Also, if I am remembering the right email I sent you, It was because it was saying one user made changes to part of a page I was watching, but I had never read that part of the page before, and when I went to the page by using the link it was telling me I was the person who made the changes and there were no undisplayed subsequent changes at that time.--WolvenSpectre 15:04, 4 February 2007 (EST)

That Other Wiki

I was just at you-know-which site and they have finally got their Wiki up. They seeded it allot, and uses MediaWiki too, although you'd never know it to look at it. The design and layout is HORRIBLE for a wiki. It reads like the Encyclopedia Galactica (H2G2TG reference) and is almost painful to read. like much of their site it has more ad space than anything else. Even the font/typeface is a poor choice.

I don't think that we have anything to worry about unless they get territorial.--WolvenSpectre 15:55, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Email vs E-Mail

• I saw your note on Level's talk page. If you're talking about renaming the article it would be better discussed on the talk page for The email. However "email", while perhaps more colloquial, is an acceptable way of spelling it now. (Admin 10:00, 27 January 2007 (EST))
• More importantly, nobody's against changing it on the Theories page because they're stubbornly against your version of the spelling. It keeps getting changed back because changing it breaks the links to and from the main article.--Hardvice (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2007 (EST)
  • This isn't about those email notification problems I am having.
    
    I did not know until earlier today, when Ryangibsonstewart told me, that I was breaking redirects by changing the capitalization of the sections title. I am not an experienced MediaWiki Contributor (my previous experience was correcting blatantly incorrect text in Wikipedia).
    
    The only reason is that a couple friends, who I was showing what I was contributing was pointing out that the uncapitalized entries were sticking out like a sore thumb when almost all of the entries are. They, not users of wikis directly, thought it looked sloppy, and I wouldn't go that far, but thought it an easy fix.<br.
    When I changed it and the whole discussion about which way the wiki winds would blow, no one brought up anything about changing redirects and breaking them. As for what the community wanted, every time I asked if it would be OK if I just capitalized the E, no matter what page I put it on, it wasn't answered, and half the time it was deleted without any email notice. From this I figured the only way to get a response one way or the other was just to do it.
    
    Well now I have my answer, but still I assume that there is a way to format the markup like an internal link. If so, I think that the community or you should decide on a default formatting for titles that also redirect. Even if that default formatting is none (leave it as it is). Whatever the decision is it should be remarked in the markup someway so other contributers/editors like me don't put both you, other members and them through this again. Not unless they miss the remarks though.
    
    But then again that is the opinion of one guy, what do you think? --WolvenSpectre 12:17, 29 January 2007 (EST)
    • Honestly, it's not a big deal. We could change it to 'The Email' if we want to—it kind of seems to violate our naming conventions, but I can go either way. My bigger concern was that since you are a new editor, you might be getting frustrated with people undoing the change, so I thought I'd pop in and offer an explanation of why it was being changed back. It's a bit unfortunate that MediaWiki is case-sensitive for internal links, and it's caused other problems before. (In general, you can always overcome the case-sensitivity by piping a different capitalization on a link, but the way the template for Theories has worked has proved very fiddly.) In any case, your contributions have all been excellent, and I for one am glad to have you here. MediaWiki's one of those things that's deceptively easy to learn ... I think we're all still figuring things out as we go, so don't worry too much about that. Don't hesitate to ask any questions as you're figuring stuff out; that's what we're here for. More importantly, don't get discouraged if an edit you make keeps getting changed or reverted, and don't hesitate to ask why (chances are there's a good, non-content-related reason).--Hardvice (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Claude Rains Theories

The Claude Rains theories should be alphabetized under "R" not "C".--E rowe 17:51, 5 February 2007 (EST)

• Yes I know I was having probs putting it back, see the disscusion page, you fixed as I typed for help. Thanks.

• PS, I am having probs with my system all of a sudden. probably was OS and Browser fighting again. Opera does not use the M$ Windows interface libraries to make it more stable and when the OS has problems the browser os still safe. Unfort. this means when Windows Networking goes a little funky (I connect through DSL and Ethernet) they start fighting. Some online coding starts to not op normal. I'm going to reboot and try moving stuff again. If you don't see it move back, please correct when you have the chance. I'll be trouble shooting and possible rebuilding windows again.
  • between my bad spelling and my problems causing characters to drop out when I saved this note I sound like my IQ dropped 40 points! ;P The test was a success, was stupid javascript spyware (I got spam-bombed when my main email address was accidentally published online and in an email newsletter of a very popular tech podcast I wrote into.) I probably got it then. It uses Sun's JavaScript and some XML to open an exploit. Luckily the default scripting in Opera is the standard JavaScript is based on ECMAScript and the exploit doesn't work but it messes up other Scripts in the same browser window. Lets hear it for free anti-spyware software writers! :D--WolvenSpectre 19:03, 5 February 2007 (EST)

CIA

I think Ryan put the CIA link in because it's a planned-but-unwritten internal page (I'm guessing because of Hana's belief that she was working for them). There are 6 other links to it already.--Hardvice (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2007 (EST)

yes, but there isn't a page yet, and it can be edited when there is one. I checked the page and it is blank. The link keeps coming up broken to me. Until then I thought that an external link would do, and what I saw in Wikipedia was pretty jaundiced.--WolvenSpectre 03:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)

The external link to the CIA's homepage is great, but it will be great on article we will write for CIA. Everytime a page has a red link, it adds to Special:Wantedpages (the number will go up one more, since there is now a red link here your talk page). We won't be using the Wikipedia solely to write the article; in fact, it will be mostly Heroes-based. I think Bennet referring to the CIA to Matt, lying to Hana about working for the CIA (and then Hana claiming a CIA connection) is worthy of an article. Unless somebody else would like to, I'll try getting around to writing it this weekend so the red links turn blue. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2007 (EST)

I didn't know about the "red ink" thing (still I think the wiki could have done it in a better way, I HATE dead links) and as for the links to Wikipedia, I thought that this was part of that project Jimmy Whales came up with where if you link a reasonable amount of content back to Wikipedia they would host your MediaWiki Wiki for free. The rest of the outside links I include for SEO. Its what made my old, temporaraly comatose blog get top ranking in almost all search engines quickly. If it is doctrine that we limit outside links to highly realavent content I would like to know.--WolvenSpectre 13:48, 9 February 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure where you got that impression. We have about a billion links to Wikipedia, including every single reference article. There's no "policy". There's just, in this specific case, a large number of internal links to an unwritten article. It's easier to leave it as-is so that the newly written article will already be linked. Red links are the easiest way to 1) remind us an article needs to be written and 2) let us gauge the importance of an unwritten article so we can prioritize our tasks. See Special:Wantedpages for a list of linked to but unwritten articles.--Hardvice (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2007 (EST)