User talk:Manorainjan

Template:TOCright 172.69.6.203

usefull

• Template:Wiki boilerplate
• Template:Wiki boilerplate De
• Template:Wikia boilerplate — only for Wikia wikis
• Template:User info
• WikiIndex:Upgrades needed

inactive

Maybe Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Inactive is the better way to clear out this category. At least we can target the template use directly. ;-/ Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, no much difference for me. But I shall wait to proceed until MarvelZuvembie stops encapsulating entries after me.Manorainjan (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I really need to have a free full day to myself before I can give my full detailed point of view on this issue. At least a good few of us seem to be getting up a head of steam on this issue, in the past when it was raised, because we were met with a wall of resistance, it fizzled out and we gave up. Now we both have a similar viewpoint, hopefully we can get this issue sorted. Impressed with your effort and energy here on WikiIndex - hope you don't burn out!!!! Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have fun doing this. Manorainjan (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

You are truly a knight in shining armour. I can not thank you enough for your kind understanding. Omgosh, it was horrific. I know I've much to learn but it does not mean I've nothing to offer. Well, now to relax and recuperate from that ordeal. Sincerely, Sonia Sonia de Lorraine (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again. G'night now. I need sleep. Sonia Sonia de Lorraine (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy discussions

Hi. There seems to be a lot of fresh policy discussions cropping up on my talk page, Mark's talk page, and no doubt a few others. Can we please ensure these are discussed in more appropriate places. Either Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki if it just concerns issues which only sysops can deal with, or WikiIndex talk:Community portal for all other wiki-wide discussions. I'll add this same message on other appropriate users talk pages. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Categorising wiki logo

I don't know if you are aware we have a template for auto-categorising wiki logo, it being template:WikiLogoOf? Simply add {{WikiLogoOf|Name of wiki article here on WikiIndex}}. This then creates a simple one line sentance desribing where the logo is used (complete with a wikilink to said article), and also includes it into Category:WikiLogo. Best, Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE — can you please use only the above template to categorise wiki logos. Please do not use [[Category:WikiLogo]]. Thanks. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 11:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Silly! I just tried this on File:Asianmediawiki2.jpg and AsianWiki. It results in "This logo is used by AsianWiki." When You take away the logo from the Wiki-page, it still says so. The template lies. Also it does not say which logo the Wiki itself uses, because that is actually no logo at all. (our Logo is outdated.) And in case this logo is indeed used by a Wiki or other page, the file-page says so in the last lines anyway. So no use of that template, just complicating "work". In addition to that, many pics are Wiki-logos but are not used by the page or even that Wiki page does not exist. For those cases this template is really unfit. Manorainjan (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The template:WikiLogoOf does work as designed, but granted it doesn't cope with instances such as when a wiki creates a newer updated logo. The template was designed (long before I started on WikiIndex) as a consistent way of categorising wiki logo. It also has the benefit of moving up the page the link of the wiki article it is used on (yes, some people are too lazy to scroll down the page! And other folks may just look at the picture and not actually be interested in looking to see where the image is used.) We can work around the issue of when it isn't used anymore, by simply adding a few words after the template indicating so. Please recheck File:Asianmediawiki2.jpg and AsianWiki to see how I have implemented this.

bad template inactive

Futhermore, the template:WikiLogoOf is of massive assistance when its article refers to an 'inactive' wiki which has its infobox template changed to template:Inactive - as that template strips away its identifying logo for the File:Inactive.png!!

Oh, sure you don't get me around by this one! to remedy some of the violence of this notorious inactive-template with another fuzzy template is not what I call a solution. That bad template this destructor of information should be banned anyway. Who actually invented this bad thing? Manorainjan (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

lazy scrollers

You don't get me with that. If You think the Information about 'File usage' is way too down, than the use of a template is not the solution. Than the design of the Wiki needs to change in general. That would make sense, since in some cases there might be a long list of picture history which pushes the information quite deep down. File:Augustine training.jpg. So the 'File usage' should come before the history.Manorainjan (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Then you would need to re-write the MediaWiki software. Best head over to MediaWiki.org and raise your concerns with them. Night-Night. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 22:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a similar problem with another kind of page: [Special:ActiveUsers]

The first item in the line is the user name. I just tried a little around and it looks like a user name could be extremely long (please delete my request for account ;-). So the list is badly formatted 'Flattertext' in German.

'(Talk | contribs)' always has the same length.

Then comes the number of edits which varies, but not so much, say 1 to 5 chars.

At last comes a totally redundant text "action in the last 30 days]" which is not changed to 'actionS' even though this is the more common case. That text should not be part of the list at all, it should be in the header only.

After all, the numbers should be first row fixed width of 5 chars, then user names and there should be choice of sorting name or edits up and down and number of days as well. But my point here is, that the most varying item is first and as such smashes the layout. And this is not only here the case, it is MediaWikiWide nonsense. Manorainjan (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

better use

There is a place where this template would be useful, if You love it so much, that You don't want to delete it:

• Step 2 of WikiIndex:Add a Wiki

There the Name of the Wiki is already present and IF(!) a logo-file is named, then this template could be inserted in the file page to do its thing. Because in this process (Click left in Navi. on 'Add a Wiki', doing step 2, etc.) normally one would not add a category to the logo. That's how all those hundreds of uncategorised logo files come about!Manorainjan (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That page simply calls on the special page Form:Wiki (which then uses Template:Wiki) to create a new or edit an existing article - but crucially, complying with Structured Data as required by our Semantic MediaWiki plug-in.

However, that said Form:Wiki can NOT 'upload' an image file, nor edit an existing image file – so your theory would not work. Files can only be uploaded (by registered users) via the Special:Upload, and I have no idea how to edit that special page. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not expect the form to upload a file. I thought of an automatism that could be triggered by the logo field filled with a local name. I assume that can be tested on. But by now that field is that dump that it not even tests on a valid input in case of a local file and therefore does not help the newbie. Like, when You fill in only the name of the logo file without brackets, than it could issue a hint, couldn't it?Manorainjan (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Aventurica

Hallo, ich habe dir im Wiki Aventurica eine Nachricht hinterlassen. --Theaitetos (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die Verbesserungen des Artikels – besonders zu so später Stunde. :-D --Theaitetos (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

your ToDo lists

You can copy your ToDo list to a better sub-page, ie User:Manorainjan/ToDo. ;). Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 16:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we have alternative infoboxes besides Template:Wiki?

Discussion here. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

THE template

Why didn't You use this? (late or not...) Template:Wiki boilerplate Manorainjan (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the creation of Discordian Wiki page. If so, I didn't use that boilerplate because (A) I used WikiIndex:Add_a_Wiki and (B) “Haven't put all info in because going to sleep and don't have energy to switch to a Skin (computing) that isn't Wikia's horrible "wikia" skin.” --EarthFurst (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. I tried it myself and was surprised about the result. This template/function needs quite some change!! Thanks for the answer! Manorainjan (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiBreak

I think I'm going to go on wikibreak for awhile (i.e. switch off email notifications); I find this whole blocking situation kinda demoralizing/depressing. Regrettably, this kind of stuff seems to happen on every wiki I've ever used. It reminds me of my recent relationship; I keep thinking, "Isn't there a way that intelligent people who have a lot of the same goals and values can resolve this stuff, or at least make more of an effort to calmly discuss and maybe, at minimum, learn something" but sometimes the answer seems to be no. And the person saying no puts 100% of the blame on the other person's behavior as being the reason why they said no. It becomes impossible to even have a productive meta-discussion about how to have better discussions.

People get so emotionally triggered that they go into fight-or-flight mode and can't listen, think creatively, or have a sense of humor about the situation. In reality, there often is no emergency that requires drastic action for protection of oneself or the community, but people act as though there is. Even an expressed disagreement gets perceived as a threat.

A person gets labelled as "bad person" or "untrustworthy person" or whatever and then all their actions are regarded with suspicion as probably malevolently intended. But people are more complex than these archetypes of heroes and villains. Even those who have hurt us tend to have something to offer, that we can often salvage without opening ourselves up too much to harmful betrayal.

If they can't offer anything now in a way or form that can be accepted, it might be possible six months down the road (due to either or both of the disputants' changing, or the situation's changing), which is why I believe in the standard offer as at least a way of mitigating the extent of the possible damage from situations that get out of hand (although it would be better if they didn't get out of hand to begin with). I can think of only one time that I cut someone out of my life for longer than six months (which I later regretted as unnecessary, since I could have forgiven sooner and found ways to assert my rights effectively while still allowing him to have some contact), and I do not know of any situation in which it would be necessary to cut anyone out of participation in a wiki for more than six months.

I do not see this 'case' as even near to the need of applying a ban on anybody. Me getting a block was already overdrawn, the nature of the block (no possibility to use email function) was overdrawn. Bad things happened, but no serious ones. therefore guidance and canalisation are the ways out, not blocking or even banning. Manorainjan (talk)

I hope wikilove (or wikifriendship) does find a way to prevail in the end, though. Leucosticte (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

German phrase: "Hoffen und harren tun nur die Narren." ;-) Means, the things You wish for, do not come about by themselves, You have to make them grow systematically. And I do not see Your tendency to make a wikibreak ;-) Manorainjan (talk)

I took a wikibreak. I didn't say I was LANCB. Leucosticte (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello

First of all, I apologize for not knowing much English. Thank you for your changes. Here the pages that need to be translated into Turkish would be glad if you tell. I'm doing translations with google translate. But I'm dealing with 15 years of web design. Therefore, the problem is not in translations. Turkish translation've done a lot to wikipedia.--Bilgive (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, external links to open in another window $wgExternalLinkTarget = '_blank'; you can use.--Bilgive (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Translations

Because of this problem Help talk:E-mail it would be good to point also Turkish speaking WannaBeUsers to Help:E-Mail Verification. I assume You got no problem because You are using gmail? Manorainjan (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not know exactly what. But I know that the problem is in the MediaWiki software. Although there are Turkish translation; Because of the commons sent to GMail e-mail comes to me in English. I've understood correctly. regards... --Bilgive (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

E-mail

Thanks for this It helps to foster a sense of community. Koavf (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And this is only the surface. From now on we will not frustrate new registrations any more. I intend to roll backwards all unfortunate registrations. We shall see what will come out of this for our community. Manorainjan (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The user page User:MissingLink

was deleted, so maybe the red link on your user page could be removed too. Best --Wolf | talk 08:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for ServerMove concerns

Hi Manorainjan. Since you are one of the most active contributors here I wanted to be sure to draw your attention to the upcoming ServerMove and solicit your help in making the transition a positive rather than negative experience. Please take a moment to visit ServerMove and curate the list of concerns. Thanks! -- BrandonCsSanders (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Manorainjan. Thanks for redirecting this message --Wolf | talk 09:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• what this?--Msnhinet8 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Backup timing

Hi Manorainjan, I will make a new backup of the wiki once it has been turned to read-only with the banner on. It is that backup that will be imported on the cut-over. -- BrandonCsSanders (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

testWiki

I just saw that someone replied to your message http://test.orain.org/wiki/TestWiki:Request_features#Special:WhosOnline

I answered already, because I have this page on notification. Please use Your name in summary filed when IP-editing! Manorainjan (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Altering section headers

[1] With this edit, you not only moved a new topic involving you to the bottom of the page -- which was fine --, but you also changed the section header. It was "Problem with Troublesome WikiIndex User." You made it "Problem with WikiWikiWeb user Dave Voorhis" The IP user (apparently Dave Voorhis) made it "Problem with WikiWikiWeb user Manorainjan." You again changed it to "Problem with WikiWikiWeb user Dave Voorhis."

This was tendentious editing. Editing the comments of others, in a transparently hostile way, is often a blockable offense on wikis. You are, here, demonstrating problem-user behavior. I see that your offensive remarks about Hoof Hearted on a matter where you disagreed with him may have led this highly privileged user to abandon WikiIndex. The kind of incivility you have demonstrated is toxic on wikis. I suggest an immediate course correction, or I predict you will be blocked here.

I corrected the header back to the original. I dislike that a section header with comments already in it be changed, or I'd change it to use your name. I will add a comment covering that history. --Abd (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

He already got blocked here, and then evaded the block. Changing section headers is a slightly greyer area than editing actual comments. I would only rarely do it. Leucosticte (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Abd: I totally agree with you. --Wolf | talk 12:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

People more often than not do not provide good "section headers". I think it is a good thing to adjust them to what is actually spoken. I also do that on other wikis. And I did it just now here. There is nothing wrong with it. Manorainjan (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, if a user's comments are full of BS, his section header is often a good clue to that. Leucosticte (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Manorainjan: I think it's a bad starting point to assume others are not able to choose right titles. How much time do you usually spend in getting an understanding of how the community works that you are entering? How do you rate your WikiWikiWeb excursion? --Wolf | talk 08:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiWikiWeb

On User talk:MarkDilley you wrote:

1. My efforts can not close WikiWikiWeb. Ward is the only one who can close it.
2. They have not moved it.
3. And one can not move it to Smallest Federated Wiki because that is an engine and not a wiki.
4. there is no reason whatsoever why I should not edit a page which contains mistakes.

In response:

1. True, but your so-called "efforts" -- which were deliberately disruptive, destructive, and anything but collaborative and cooperative -- can result in the administrator taking reasonable action to stop your unreasonable disruption. That's what happened.
2. It's being moved. It's a process, not a single action.
3. Huh? It can be moved to the Smallest Federated Wiki precisely because it is an engine. (It's like saying, "We're moving our Web pages to an Apache Web Server.") It can be moved to the federated wiki, too. (It's like saying, "We're moving our documents to the World Wide Web.")
4. Correcting mistakes is fine; misrepresenting the status of the WikiWikiWeb is not.

79.64.38.36 00:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Dave Voorhis

I just wanted to be sure who is the one who still dosen't (want to) get it. ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't (want to) get what?

I note you haven't addressed any of my points, though you claimed User:MarkDilley had "never been so wrong before" when you made your points. Mine agree with his. Surely, if we're both so wrong, you should be able to trivially refute our points.

What is obviously irrefutable is that you vandalised the WikiWikiWeb until Ward decided the original software couldn't be used any more. 79.64.38.36 11:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Dave Voorhis

I did address Your points repeatedly on Talk:WikiWikiWeb#Protection_as_an_endorsement_of_Koavfs_preferred_revision. where You did not mind to sign Your opinion. Manorainjan (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I refuted all of your points.

dream on!

How does "dream on" represent a counter-argument or evidence?

As for signing, I don't mind doing it, I'm just not in the habit of doing it. I don't see the need for it, as knowing who I am doesn't change the meaning of what I write. I believe you should address the writing, not the writer. 79.64.38.36 12:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Dave Voorhis

You contradict Yourself. "I believe you should" indicates that Your wishful thinking as a subject has any influence on my in my general behaviour. (which is not the case) On the other hand You are saying that one should only care for the topic and not for the person. Obviously You got no idea how screwed Your own mind is. You can not even say one straight sentence. Manorainjan (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think I'm contradicting myself, or why it would matter if I was, because signing or not is irrelevant here. You appear to be trying to divert the discussion into irrelevancies in order to avoid responding to my counter-points, above. Stick to the original issue. If you wish to divert the discussion, it would be interesting to know why you're so disparaging about the WikiWikiWeb -- something I've questioned you about multiple times and you've never answered.

79.64.38.36 16:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Dave Voorhis

Invitation or nastigram?

Manorainjan, you are correct that I've not added my own wiki. Are you inviting me to do so, or trying to chase me away? BrandonCsSanders (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Manorainjan can never resist the opportunity to point out perceived hypocrisy or inconsistency of actions with words. Leucosticte (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Leucosticte is correct. Neither did I invite You [This wiki in itself was always invitation enough] nor did I want to chase You away. I was just pointing out inconsistency. You registered here 2006 and than did exactly nothing at all until 2014. So why the talk about "awesome community" of which You obviously do not know a thing? I would prefer You would cut out the compensative smarming and stay with the facts. How did You get the idea I could possibly like to chase You away? What would be my advantage in such a case in Your eyes? I do not regard invitation and nastigramm as opposites or even contradictions. In a way most nastigramm are invitations to get going ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say "invitations"; more like pressure that's likely counterproductive. My current fiancée (the successor of the person-who-shall-not-be-named-here) uses the opposite approach. She'll make a suggestion, but never in a way that suggests I'm wrong about something; in fact she'll say the opposite (e.g. "I won't contradict") which makes it evident she disagrees, but subtly, indirectly, and non-confrontationally, so that it's up to me to ask what she thinks if I want to know. Or if an issue doesn't matter much, she'll just ignore it, rather than point out just for the heck of it that she disagrees. Plus she maintains a high ratio of positive to negative interactions. You're the most confrontational person I've ever known who hasn't yet been kicked off the wiki, which just goes to show how tolerant this place is. Even I haven't been blocked from it yet, which is rather astounding. Leucosticte (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for help on SolSeed Wiki entry

I wasn't aware of wikifactor before tracking your edits. Very interesting! BrandonCsSanders (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

test

test

Weigh in on WikiIndex:ServerName#Poll?

I wanted to be sure to draw your attention to a potential decision to change the domain of this wiki. I hope you'll weigh in with your opinion. Thanks! BrandonCsSanders (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)