User talk:JeffLait

From RogueBasin
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Deleting pages

How do I delete pages?

Only admins can delete pages. Add the page that you'd like deleted to category:delete, at some point someone will go through there and delete it. [[User:M|–MT]] 19:54, 29 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Thanks for the answer!

Blocking Users

It seems the current wiki configuration wont let sysops block users... Any chance for this to be changed is on hands of the main admins (RogueLord and DarkGod)


Any chance of them blocking said user at least?


I have been given admin access to the database, all I can to from there is delete their accounts, I will look further into blocking them soon. --Slash 17:55, 17 Apr 2006 (CEST)

Rollback link

It appears when you click 'diff' on a recent changes item, I don't recall if it is only accesible to admins though,.. --Slash 17:54, 17 Apr 2006 (CEST)

It does seem to only apply to administrators. --JeffLait 21:55, 18 Apr 2006 (CEST)

talkie talkie page

The addition I made to talkie talkie projects came from a duplicate page, Talkie Talkie Projects, which I then redirected to talkie talkie projects (the proper capitalization). I'm fine with discarding the text and the list, just wanted to let you know where it came from. [[User:M|–MT]] 21:07, 18 Sep 2006 (CEST)

Greetings

I am placing this note on all 5 sysops talk pages 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 in the hope that some site improvements can be made. (As it appears that only sysops can do what is necessary.)

When I first found the RogueBasin wiki, I was shocked that there wasn't any sort of Help section to assist new users and guide them. (The page hasn't existed since May 30, 2005(!!!), but has been visited almost 3,300 times!) I was also surprised that unless one knew from previous wiki experience where to look, finding out who was in charge (who the sysops/admins were) wasn't possible. The Community Portal page also currently redirects to the talk page, which removes the opportunity for some community-building and direction as well. It is clear to me that roguelikes have some serious fans and some dedicated programmers, and I'm just concerned that the wiki seems to have been left to sit and has gone fairly stagnant.

Currently on User:R2's talk page there is a discussion about date formatting. No standard has been set, and probably this would have been better discussed in the Community Portal, but because of the small number of daily edits, people seem to have found the discussion all right. The problem is that I think everyone in the discussion has their own preference, and there really isn't enough editor presence to come up with a consensus. And no sysop has dropped by, either. Which possibly would help, because someone has to know what the purpose of the site is supposed to be, which might help in some of the decision-making going on. - Kiefer 06:00, 25 July 2008 (CEST)

Purpose of the site is to provide a place for the roguelike community to document itself. A sort of Roguelike-centered Wikipedia, with the NPOV but without the WP:N. As such, I really don't see how the site purpose can shed any light on the ideal date format. Some of those dead pages likely stem from the spam attacks - spammers targeted "common" pages so most of them got locked down. --JeffLait 17:40, 28 July 2008 (CEST)
Thank you for your reply. The changes/pages that you made are a great start. I've put both on my watchlist, and even when I don't edit anything on the site, I check in usually once a day to see what has changed, so any spammers of those pages should get removed fairly quickly. (Plus it appears others here smack down spammers as well.)
I guess the question about the site's purpose was more whether the site is meant as primarily a resource for other programs to grab information from or whether it's a site for roguelike developers only/primarily, or whether it was for developers and players equally or something else. Is it meant to have an international audience, an English-speaking audience only, or...? If the site is primarily a resource for programs to grab info from, then the most computer-friendly date format is best, if it's an international format, then probably the usual wiki format would be best, if it's an English-only, then perhaps a more "Month Day, Year" format might be best. Purpose sometimes helps dictate form, I guess.
Really, however, I'm just grabbing for any info that I can get, date formatting question or not. I don't know the origin of the site, and what its original goal was. Unfortunately, it appears fairly abandoned. (I don't know, maybe not. I admin at a site that gets hundreds upon hundreds of changes a day, so perhaps I'm a bit jaded. :-] ) As a player, I came here actually looking for some sort of help with your game, which slaps me around no matter how much I know. I added some of my personal notes about it for whatever other desperate soul goes looking, but didn't feel bold enough to try to create help pages and such because I just didn't know enough. Mainly because I didn't know about the purpose of the site. (Again, purpose dictates form.)
As a roguelike player (admittedly only a handful of roguelike games), I'd like to see more detail about the games. As with the POWDER page, I'd like to see each game have a main page, but then a Gameplay section that has helpful hints/spoilers/info. (All the stuff that...when desperate, oh so desperate...players go Googling for.) But that's a player speaking. So while I was bold with the POWDER stuff (I figured if someone minded, then things would get editing/changed/deleted/etc.), I didn't feel free to venture into editing other things (well, they were locked anyway!)
So, thank you again for taking the time to reply and for creating those new pages. Hopefully I will have some extra time mid-August and help flesh things out a little on those two new pages! Kiefer 04:32, 31 July 2008 (CEST)
I'm fairly new here, but I thought that the main purpose of this site was to assist people who want to create their own roguelike. A bit by developers for developers. The different pages about the different games are just to show the different games that are out there.
But I don't think that it would be bad to add a bit more information to the pages of the different roguelikes. But if you start to do this there is the problem that some of the features in the roguelikes are subject to change. And documentation is alway outdated. And it could move the focus from developers to players, which would be bad for the small developing community of roguelikes. But that is just my 2 cents. I still would not think that a gameplay part on each roguelike page is a bad idea. Add some if you have something to say about a game. But most games are so complex that they could really do with a separate wiki for the gameplay issues. (Just look at the DoomRL wiki). So if you want to write a guide to a certain RL go ahead, I doubt people really mind if you add to the pages). I don't think it is bad if the pages of the different roguelikes become more player focussed. Players are also part of the roguelike community. And I think that the focus language here should be English. (question that remains: UK or US English? armour or armor? meh...).
And I don't really know if there is something like a real group of strong admins. The roguelike community is so small that this is not really needed. But I could be wrong. Perhaps you could ask it on the development newsgroup? --Soyweiser 13:16, 31 July 2008 (CEST)
Roguebasin's goal is to solve the problem of information on roguelikes being spread out and/or transient. Posts on newsgroups disappear into archives, websites by roguelike authors drop out of existence. Questions like "What is a roguelike?" get debated but there is no place to write the resulting consensus.
It isn't meant to be a developer only site. There is a strong developer bias because it originated from rgrd and we had lots of articles, etc, we wanted placed in a semi-fixed location. It was always intended to provide information about all roguelikes, however. This, as noted, runs the risk of becoming out dated. But so do any other page, or even official development pages.
An encyclopedia style entry for each roguelike is quite appropriate. Detailed information is also quite appropriate, but if it is specific to a roguelike it should be kept in that roguelike's namespace. Many large roguelikes have their own dedicated wikis so don't need a section on roguebasin - I see nothing wrong with that, the roguebasin article can just point to the relevant external wiki. However, other roguelikes, such as POWDER, are written by lazy developers who can't be bothered to setup and administer their own wiki, so develop their own gameplay sections. On a further extreme, some developers don't want to maintain their own website so the roguebasin article becomes the official site. This helps the developers by providing a communal hosting location and players by providing a stable reference location.
As for Roguebasin being "dead", this is a debatable issue. I'd be somewhat surprised if there was a very high edit rate. The evolution of roguelikes is a slow (but unstoppable!) process. Roguebasin articles for a roguelike only really needs to be made when the roguelike is first added to the site, after that not much merits a change. Even with POWDER's extensive gameplay notes, they only slowly become obsolete with new versions (and new versions are lucky to be monthly releases)
Roguebasin was never intended to be a source for automated tools to build additional tables. That said, such tools are good things and Roguebasin shouldn't be trying to hinder their operation. The primary audience, however, is the roguelike player.
Thank you very much for your (Kiefer) interest in helping maintain this site. --JeffLait 19:51, 1 August 2008 (CEST)
It's my pleasure to help contribute. I like giving back a little to things that I enjoy. I'm not Daddy Warbucks, so I do what I can with my extra time.
I certainly agree with the thoughts and sentiments that you've given here. I understand the need for the site from the developer's viewpoint and certainly see that the site is essential as a "meeting" place for roguelike developers. As a player, I also see how valuable the site could be for detailing the gameplay elements of the games. (In the same way that info for developers can disappear, so can info for players.) Like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, I'd like to see the two communities come together a little more and think that this site is a natural place for that to take place. "Players...meet developers. Developers...meet players. Oh, yeah, and if you liked these roguelikes, here is a few dozen more that you might also like!" Kiefer 05:46, 3 August 2008 (CEST)

POWDER 107

Is it just me, or does the Windows version for 107 not include the "pick your god" bit and also not allow the mouse to work properly when one names their character or items? Kiefer 19:24, 11 August 2008 (CEST)

Incidentally, I get the same on the WinCE version (assuming it's the same code) - out of several games, I've only been asked to pick my god (at the beginning) once, so I just assumed it was normal. Scautura 20:05, 11 August 2008 (CEST)
It's strange. I just bulldozed on despite the problems, and after playing a handful of games with out picking a god, I am now asked to pick my god as usual. The on-screen keyboard still doesn't work with the mouse, but everything else seems to be normal. Very strange. Kiefer 06:22, 26 August 2008 (CEST)

Random name generation

Hi Jeff,

I updated the Random name generation page using a old post you made to the rgrd list. I hope you don't mind. I also interpreted the sentence "You can treat this code as public domain." as the more explicit: "This code is in public domain". I hope you don't mind. If you do, feel free to edit it. --Soyweiser 13:57, 18 August 2008 (CEST)

All good, thank you for formatting the code & making it standalone. I've signed the RGRD release so my posts are free for poaching here. --JeffLait 05:19, 21 August 2008 (CEST)
Sure you did sign the RGRD release, but this doesn't really cover code licensing. (And you could argue that the licensing of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 does not also allow the release of something under that license to the public domain.
And I thought that developers would be picky about how they release code, and less picky about how the discussions about the development are licensed. So I thought it would be better to just ask. (Also, it is better manners, better ask once to many, than ask once to few, esp regarding software licenses). --Soyweiser 13:27, 21 August 2008 (CEST)
Personal tools