User talk:Mwalimu/Archive1

Hi there, Mwalimu - welcome to WikiFur! Thanks for your contributions so far - let me know on my user talk page if you need any help not already provided. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 18:27, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

New article

Pardon me if this is a really dumb question, but how does one get to the initial edit screen to create a new article if there is no existing "Article to add" link to start from?

Not a dumb question at all - it's not hugely obvious. One way is to create such a link by putting [[Something]] into an existing article - such a related article. This is usually a good idea because it encourages pages to be linked to related pages. However, if there isn't any page for which this is appropriate, you should either put this link in the Sandbox and delete it later, or type the URL in manually. If you look at the URL for this page, you should see that it includes the name of the page - you can change the URL to any name and it will go to that page, even if it doesn't exist yet. You can then click edit and start typing! --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:17, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Templates and Deletion

Hey there, just wanted to let you know that we now have a new template that you can use if you need to notify admins about pages that need deleting. Just add {{SpeedyDelete}} to a page and this message will be placed on the page and it will be put in the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion category.

You can see a full list of all our new templates at WikiFur:Boiler Plate Text.

-Nidonocu - talk 04:02, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Pumbaa

I hope you don't mind, but I just fixed several of your new entries to correct the spelling of Pumbaa's name. Mwalimu 04:48, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...I'm an idiot. ;) Rama 05:03, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Recent SpeedyDelete

I've removed the SpeedyDelete from User:NullEnigma's page. Please remember to check the edit history as you'll find he was the one who put that content there. -Nidonocu - talk 00:18, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Gah.. I just noticed this isn't a usernamespace article. I'll move it. -Nidonocu - talk 00:21, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Statistics

I'd like to suggest that the page Wikicities Statistics for WikiFur be linked from somewhere on WikiFur, perhaps from Special Pages. Mwalimu 19:39, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

We can't edit the specialpages page, but it's linked (along with other stats links) on the about page, in the Statistics section. Perhaps there should be a link to that from the left bar (although there already is a link at the bottom, and on the first word of WikiFur Central). --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:31, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Categories:People

Hey, Mwalimu. I see that you've been active in maintaining [Category:People], so maybe you can tell me: Why does the bottom list stop at "R"? Thanks, --Tom Howling 15:23, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Because it only displays the first 200 entries. Just above the Subcategories section, you will see (previous 200)(next 200). Click on (next 200) to see the rest of the list. Mwalimu 15:26, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this... twice. :) --Tom Howling 16:23, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The crazy thing is, we have more than 200 entries, and it's only been a month and a bit. It took almost half a year to get 200 entries on people over at Creatures Wiki, and it was a pretty common category for new pages. --GreenReaper^(talk) 01:11, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Furries are more egocentric than Creatures. ;) --Tom Howling 02:05, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Recently popular pages

Is there a way to display the most popular pages using only the most recent data for a specified time period (such as the "show last" options on the My watchlist)? Mwalimu 23:47, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Alas, there seems not to be. --GreenReaper^(talk) 01:11, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Everyone Else Has Had More Sex Than Me

I already added that image in... you should see it in the history. nn; Almafeta 17:53, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I didn't (and still don't) see it in the history for this entry (I did, however, notice that you had uploaded the image - Thank you - and edited the entry to use it). WikiFur seems to be having problems today with edits not appearing right away (even when using shift-reload, which is supposed to force a reload from the site, bypassing the cache), then showing up later. As User:DuncanDaHusky points out, it seems like a good time to hold off edits until the technichal glitches get sorted out. --mwalimu 14:29, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

With new tabs comes new responsibility . . . *grin*

Welcome to WikiFur:Administrators! You may notice a few new tabs along the top, and some other changes around the site in relation to user blocking, rollbacks and the like. I suggest you look over this page if you're not familiar with how to use them. Hopefully you won't need them much, but they're there for when you do. Use them wisely! :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:30, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Noticed it a few minutes ago, and already blocked my first user (heh! heh!). Thanks for the upgrade. --mwalimu 06:33, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Wiki editing can be dangerous to your health

Outing a lady's age? You're a braver fur than I . . . just don't blame me if you wake up in the night with two puncture holes in your neck. ;-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:25, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I guess I better watch my neck.
Just wondering - how do you handle when someone doesn't want certain information about them (such as their year of birth) included in their WikiFur article? --mwalimu 06:33, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

That is a very tricky question that has already come up several times. There is some guidance at WikiFur:Personal information. Generally speaking, if people really don't want it in, and it is personal, it should be removed unless there is an overriding reason to keep it. Our policy is that it is better for an article to lack some information than for the article to be blanked, which we offer as a last resort. There is a much higher burden of need to remove information referring to them in other articles that is not personal - see Talk:Mix and Talk:Further Confusion/Eyes of the Night. Of course, it depends how you define personal, which has always been an issue. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 07:17, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Novels / Stories / Fiction

I'm question whether the division between Category:Novels and Category:Stories is the best approach to take. Currently, the convention is that if it's commercialy published, it goes in Novels, and if it's web published only, it goes in Stories. A third category, Category:Fiction, seems to be mostly redundant with the other two (and has had a merge template for over a month). More than once, contributors have put stories in the wrong category. Some of the entries in Stories are short stories, and at least one current article in Novels is for an anthology. Maybe we should have categories for short stories, or for multi-book series.

Is there a better way to organize/subcategorize stories and such? I think we can figure out a workable system while it would still require recategorizing no more than a couple dozen articles. --mwalimu 16:29, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to delete Category:Fiction in a couple of days (after checking and if necessary recategorizing all the articles in it). --mwalimu 18:51, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yipe, I missed this - sorry! Umm. Not sure I have a better answer, though. It's always hard to categorize this sort of gradual change from one to another. Perhaps Category:Fiction should be a super-category of both? --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:09, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Okay, a question then. Should we maintain the category distinction between web fiction and published fiction?

If the answer is no, then I propose we make Fiction the primary category. Subcategories of it would include Novels, Short fiction, Story series, and Anthologies. Most works of fiction should fall into one of these four. No category distinction between commercially vs. web published. How does that sound? --mwalimu 18:38, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree - fiction is fiction, and it really shouldn't matter for categorization purposes whether it was published in paper or not, commercially or not (though it should of course be noted in the article). --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:00, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Reorg done. Category:Stories is now basically obsolete, with most of the articles spread among Category:Novels, Category:Short stories, and Category:Story series. Category:Fiction is now used as a higher-level category for these and other fiction-related subcategories. I'm not familiar with some of the stories I had to recat (both the ones with articles and the "To add" lists), so anyone who reads this, please look them over and if you see something in the wrong category, please feel free to move it to the correct one. --mwalimu 21:44, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Body Parts

I agree with having a category for body parts, but may I suggest calling it Category:Anatomy terms instead? --mwalimu 06:29, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I just figured I'd put something there as a reminder. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:42, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

I'm getting someone to look at this, perhaps we can get them automatically rolled back. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

AIM

I would, but I'm not on my familiar machine tonight. -- Siege 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Darn - right now, GreenReaper, DMuth, Rat and I are discussing the current situation. We seem to have stopped the attack but haven't decided yet what to do about repairing the damage. --mwalimu 06:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Temporarily stymied, but they're coming up with names/sockpuppets/maroons as fast as they can. I'm starting to wonder if there isn't at least one bot involved, just on general principles. In any case, they decided to hit my page as soon as I commented. Seriously. Lockdown. -- Siege 06:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup crew

Man, that was messy; nice work on cleanup even if you did block us both! ;-) (I have to remember to deredlink my userpage more often...) Cheers, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for working to clear up the problem! --GreenReaper^(talk) 08:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - I'm up later than I'd planned to be. I don't know about you, but I was working quickly enough that I may have accidentally missed or mis-reverted a few, but I think we got most of them, and hopefully, astute readers will catch the rest. --mwalimu 08:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fox-Species

Do you really think this is the right place for adding the articles about the fox-species? Wouldn't improvind the articles in the german wikipedia be a better thing to do for everyone?

Suran, author of [1] (VERY old site, only up for historic reasons but with good info.)

I'm not familiar with the German Wikipedia. All I really did here on WikiFur was break out the information that had been in the existing article Fox into separate articles; I added very little new information, and some of stuff in the Fox article should probably still be broken out into the species articles. Admittedly, some of the newly broken out articles are pretty terse at this point and beg to be expanded upon, but considering that many other animal families have separate articles for different species, and some of the individual fox species are quite popular in their own right, it seemed like an appropriate step to take.

Thank you for your comments. --mwalimu 21:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Rose Quoll (from User talk:210.49.67.89)

Regarding your edit to Rose Quoll, removing material from an article without explanation will nearly always get rolled back. If you have good reason for doing so, please post an explanation in the article discussion. --mwalimu 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Assumably she no longer owns the mice? (maybe they were eaten by the cats . . .) Other changes were made to the article as well and they seem reasonable, so I don't see why it should be reverted. Sometimes removing information is valid. An edit summary would have been nice, admittedly. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I overreacted. I tend to be more skeptical of edits from an IP address than from a registered user (and I usually check the history of an IP address in deciding whether to revert, which I forgot to do in this case). It was a close call - at least I recognized the edit as being plausible enough that I didn't block the user. --mwalimu 05:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

IP edits can be tricky. Still, as we've seen with the vandal bots, a nickname is no assurance of a good edit. I worry that people will take advantage of that some day with less obviously major edits or edit summaries. Fortunately most of those who might try it are not clever enough to do it.

Thanks for improving Trouble's Tales, by the way. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

View counts

I've noticed that the view counts in Special:Popularpages have not updated at least since last Thursday on several articles I've been following, even though I've viewed some of those articles myself during that time. I've verified this from two different computers and used a couple of other tricks to make reasonably certain it's not a browser cache issue. What gives?

Edit: There are also several hundred articles that currently show 0 views. --mwalimu 14:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I had a chat with the admins and apparently they had to discontinue popular pages updating due to server loads. We can get the same sort of information from the google analytics stats, so it's no great loss, although it is a pity that people can't access that without talking to me first.

As this makes the page rather useless, I've removed the link in the main page header and added in links to the article and user talk pages instead. --GreenReaper^(talk) 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care.

--64.18.110.233 18:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sibe:Talk

I'm just curious what qualified Sibe:Talk for protection, but not the Sibe article itself ... seems like the Sibe article has been vandalized at least as much as the Talk page. --67.161.106.12 07:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The main article itself needs to be open in case futher accurate and confirmable information can be added I guess. The talk page is pretty much just a bunch of discussions, but it shouldn't be under protection status too much longer if the vandals stay away for a while. ----Markus^(talk) 08:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The protection was to limit editing the article to registered users only. It shouldn't affect logged in users; it just can't be edited anymore by users who aren't signed in (I didn't know that option existed until I went to protect the first archive, as it contains the most frequently targeted discussion thread). If it doesn't work that way, however, let us know and we'll remove the protection. --mwalimu 12:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize the registered-users-only option was available before I saw you implement it last night. That's a mighty nifty improvement!----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 12:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Krystal

You wrote: Just curious about your reasons for removing of a couple of statements from Krystal. We typically frown on deleting material from articles without explanation, but if you have good cause for doing so, please let us know and we may reconsider. --mwalimu 19:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The section I deleted didn't seem very encyclopedia worthy. If someone stated, "she is a popular character used in much erotic fan art", that would be more legit, in my book. If you feel the need, revert the page. It just didn't seem very official to me. --Taren 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Already reverted it, since I think her popularity in that regard justifies mention in the article. But I concur with your suggestion that a more straightforward statement would be an improvement over the current somewhat obtuse one. I'll give you dibs on making the edit; if not, I may do it myself later. --mwalimu 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Patrolled Edits

Since you're an admin, you can automatically mark edits that you make as patrolled. To do this, click "preferences" at the top, then under the "Editing" section, check "Mark edits I make as patrolled" --Rat 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I never noticed those "other pages" of options before - thank you for pointing that out. --mwalimu 04:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Brillliant Right!

http://www.truechristian.com/furriesa.html Interesting! Just wanted to see what you guys think.

It's good to see such an authoritative and popular site covering the topic! Shame about the colour scheme, but eh, what can you do? --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How much of that site did you look at? Not exactly the most flattering portayal of furries. If anything, I'm glad they chose a color scheme that makes it look like an amateur rant. --mwalimu 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. :-) I guess I should have included the ;-) . . . --GreenReaper^(talk) 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. My bad. --mwalimu 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)