This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.

User talk:WolvenSpectre

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • 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 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)


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)
It's kind of a moot point now that the article is written...but it's not the Wikipedia content or the external link to CIA's website with which I had an issue. Both of those links are on the new CIA page, which is where they belong. It's just good practice to keep red links for articles that need to be written, for the reasons Hardvice stated above. Hope that helps. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2007 (EST)
OK, don't have to give Wikipedia first dibs on links or else. Got it. I didn't come out and say it, but I did not know about the red ink/Wantedpages thing, and in my opinion it could be done in a better way by the software designers than leaving dead links, like just giving it a tag that marks it as a wanted page and display it as something other than a link, which an be changed in all places during the page creation process. It has been years since I was a serious programmer and if I did something like that I would have never heard the end of it. Then again other people probably think its brilliant.--WolvenSpectre 01:15, 10 February 2007 (EST)
No, I agree with you, it's not the best design. It is useful to click the link and start the page, but, well, only one person will do that, and then it's written. You're right, it would be interesting if it appeared as black linkless text, yet the name still showed up on the wantedpages list. Then when the article is created, the link would turn blue. But then again, I don't program the software. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2007 (EST)
Of course, it is one of only two ways to create an article ... and for very good reason. The lack of an "add a new article" link used to annoy me, but the more I think about it, the better I like it. The red link approach ensures that each new article is either already linked to or that it has been searched for to prevent duplicates, each of which is useful in its own right.--Hardvice (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2007 (EST)
I agree that it is good to have, and very neccesary, and now that i know it exists you'll probably see more red in my stuff, but its a klugey way of doing it. for every broken "X" add error message to a special page, but title it "wanted", count how many broken "X"'s there are, and remove when corrected. basically its a pretty "syntax error" with a stylesheet.

But I kept wondering, this has to keep track of wanted pages centrally somewhere.--WolvenSpectre 02:31, 10 February 2007 (EST)

You can change how it looks in your Preferences on the Misc tab, but it only changes how it looks. -Level 04:41, 10 February 2007 (EST)
Thanks Level, made change, but now it doesn't have any delineation. Its wonderful that it's not a dead link anymore, but as just black text it only shows on the special page which is visited less often. I wouldn't mind it still being red but not being a link is my problem. I know "Cry me a river." and my fathers favourite "Oh, you are so hard done by!". Still thanks, and I have put the wanted pages link on my tool bar with the home page and Help:editing pages.--WolvenSpectre 13:28, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Capitalizing and Links

Hey, WolvenSpectre. I was reading your edit summary, and I was having a hard time figuring out why you capitalized some of the links. If I understood you correctly, you capitalized The Map and The List because they are treated as proper nouns. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but ultimately, we're not really making any common nouns proper, with the exception of the Symbol and the Mark. I'm also not sure why you reinstated so many of the links. Granted, we don't have a rule for links per page or links per section, but we generally try to do one link per section. I'm counting 3 links to the list, not including the section heading; there are also 3 links to AWI, two of which are in the same column. I just don't think that many are necessary, but if you have a reason, I'd like to know. Thanks! :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2007 (EST)

  • Sorry for the long time in responding, rebuilding my computer from scratch after my PC crashed and took my OS with it. Let me tell you, using Linux to basically break into a NTFS formated drives to get at all my software and backup post mortem. take my advice BACK UP TONIGHT!

    Since there is no other list, the name given to and commonly recognized is the proper name, as in proper noun (Also referred to as a proper pronoun). An example is 'Shindler's List'. If it refers to a particular list, not just a list that belonged to Shindler, but a recognized specific list. If it was just an unspecific list, then it would be 'Schindler's list'. Therefore 'The List' and 'The Map', which are titles given to the items by the show and the fans. At least that is my argumen... side of the debate. ;-)

    The general rule I went by was one link per section of the table because some people who previously read it and are only reading the sections that change. That way they don't have to reread the rest to find the link. this follows the rules I was taught for making footnotes. Once in a page unless there is a diagram, graph, bulleted list, or columns.

    I would like a generally agreed guideline on this.--WolvenSpectre 22:52, 23 February 2007 (EST)

    • We did, for awhile, capitalize lots of the nouns. That's been changed, but you can see relics of it in some of the redirects. In general, we keep "list" lowercase (same with "map"). The only ones we capitalize are "Symbol" and "Mark", unless referenced in the indefinite ("Isaac has a mark on his neck", "Matt stares at a symbol in the pool"). As for links, it's generally agreed that one link per section is necessary. I think I was curious about the edit you made that included more than one link per section. But it's kind of a moot issue now, isn't it? :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2007 (EST)
      • I just wanted a clarification why you don't capitalize and explain why I did. As for the multiple links, that was an accident and I wanted to state why I was doing links in each section because I was thinking that that would be a possible guideline.

        I originally was posting this on Sunday when my PC had a major nervous breakdown and it took me 2 days just to get it to boot let alone set up, install, update, and the other stuff that entails. I only made a couple of posts when I visited friends and used their computers. I forgot about this post not going through.

        For that article it is moot, I just wanted to clear this up and respond to your post.--WolvenSpectre 00:19, 24 February 2007 (EST)