User talk:Mason11987

Admins
Just to let you know, Admins can make admins as well, and you need to win a majority vote to be made an admin. Aido2002 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You sure? Other mediawiki's I've seen sysops can't create sysops, but if that's the case here then what unique power do bureaucrats have?  Also, how do I go through such a vote? Mason11987 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship
Your request for adminship has been ended early, because you have not been a member for at least a week, as is required. Aido2002 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, I saw that a little late but wasn't sure if it'd be better to remove it and re-apply later or wait for some more clarification. I will repost it when the week ends :) Mason11987 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My Country Page
Thanks for the change on my article about Soviet Narodnik, but i like it as the size it is, so if you could please keep it that way that would be apprciated. Thanks --Thecrisis5 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I thought it was one of those things where an image was accidentally too big, but now that I look at it, it actually does look cool like that, my mistake. Mason11987 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:infobox_country3
umm, I was a little confused about what you were asking. I'd rather you didnt edit the template i just made, but if i read your post right you are making a separate template and copying my categories? Thats fine...I copied some of them from infobox_country2.Solidusspriggan 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, ok i reread it and now it makes sense. Yeah I tried to standardize the fields a little bit. switched to just  and that sort of thing

Your suggestions
Well, what you said is what we are trying to do. I realize that not everything looks good, but it is a work in progress, and editing the Monobook.css and similar templates is hard (the codes and the way they are written is confusing). All I can say is that we are working on it. Also, this is not a forum, it is a wiki, and I moved your post to the village pump, where it will be noticed. Aido2002 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize it's not a forum, but there are extensions that wikia has installed that makes setting something like that up quite easy. Since I figured it'd be a good chance to grow the community a little bit, and it was completly my own time, I didn't see the harm in setting up the begginnings of it.  As I wrote in my message I'd be willing to add the information myself if I had the ability, but if you'd prefer I can simply make a page that can be copy-pasted onto those pages (although they aren't templates) there to serve the same function.  I'll help out with the working on it because that's what a wiki's for right? :) Mason11987 20:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, before unilatterally deleting pages without discussion, could you bring it up on a talk page? "redundant, such discussions belong on the village pump, and "Forum" isn't a namespace"  Forum is most certainly a namespace my friend, see here. Mason11987 20:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a namespace until you made it. Either way, we have the village pump for that reason. I deleted the pages becuase that belonged in the village pump, which is why I moved your comments there. Aido2002 20:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't create a namespace. It was unused before I made the pages but namespaces can only be added through the FTP. Mason11987 20:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, one page can't hold the general discussion of an entire wiki, and this would also allow a place for people to talk about cybernations withour respect to a particular article, which while may not advance the wiki directly, would definitly create a more secure community that would be talking here and can help out the wiki too. Mason11987 20:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever the situation, it doesn't matter. The point of the Village Pump is to be the discussin place, a forum is redundant. Aido2002 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Although you were using this as a reason to suggest I didn't know the wiki enough, and was therefore not fit to be an administrator, clearly our difference in opinion has nothing to do with my lack of knowledge of the wiki, it's simply that you think all discussion belongs in the village pump, and I think it would be useful to have other discussion places too. I'll drop the forum idea for now and if you would oppose giving admin powers to me because I'm still new here, then oppose it for the fact I'm new, and not that I don't understand how to use the wiki because I clearly do and I do understand how things work here, but had an idea for an improvement that didn't work out the best, not really legitimate reasons (in their own right) to oppose sysop status, right? Mason11987 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

/b/
Let me start by saying that this sort of thing I was trying to avoid, it would have come up as a discussion on how to fix the problem. The whole subpage thing, as I'm sure you understand, means it classifies the page differently, which, assuming we eventually expand, will lead to issues. It seems that all it does is add a "<", but there is more, the "<" is the only visible evidence. (Part of this problem is that the wikilink at the top of the article-- which I formatted as /b/ -- does not work correctly. If it just put that sign there, we wouldn't really have a problem. I locked the redirect page to avoid an edit war, but then decided to put on the template (To make people aware it was locked), but I guess I can remove the template now, and let it redirect, everyone knows. As for that policy page about protection, you wrote that, after his happened, which means I didn't break a policy. Ex post facto. The policy doesn't regulate this situation at all, because, once again, it's ex post facto. If you want to help out with the article, please help "re-write" it. I put that in quotes because it just needs to be changed to meet the style guidelines, see the tempate on the top of the /b/ article. Aido2002 22:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize you didn't "break policy" but your solution was un-wiki like and was you using your admin powers to solve a problem that could have had a better solution, namely linking to that article via /b/ (with a space) solves it.  If you had used discussion before performing a move like that, or at the very least went to discussion after you were reverted, the whole situation would be better.   /b/ is a perfectly legitimate page it just has to be linked to slightly differently _/b/.  As those who are editing about /b/ said, they would prefer to deal with the difficulties that THEY would face.  If you have a problem with having to put a space there in the few articles that you will link to /b/, then you can simply use \b\ as the link and have that redirect to the correct page, which should really be /b.  Simply put, lack of discussion and use of powers (that are a privledge) to enforce what you think is the best solution is a terribly inefficient way towards coming up with a useful solution.  I suggest supporting the protection policy I wrote, using discussion to solve problems (like someone correcting your move), and putting the page back where it belongs and allowing those who are interested in the alliance know that if they want the page where it should be they'll just have to do some slightly clever linking (which I'm sure they won't mind). Mason11987 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To respond to your comment about moving the page, I moved it manually because I wanted to make sure to move it to the correct page, the system will link to it automatically when editing a protected page (you'll know what I mean by this if you see it), and the name is case-sensitive. Since you were the only editor, I just included in my summary that you wrote it. The following is my response to your comment above:

As a bureaucrat, (I used a template for that last word because I can't spell it, if you noticed) it is my job to do seemingly minor things like that to improve the visual presentation of the wiki (among other things). Changing the slashes is the best solution, because this way it is easier for everyone-- that includes people who don't know about having to put a space before the name in a wikilink. It isn't up to the editors of that article to fix this, as they said they wanted to fix the problems they face, because contrary to what it seems they think (based on comments left on the article's talk page) it isn't their article, per se. (I'm using Latin a lot today...) The article is that of the whole community, which, as I previously stated, includes those who don't know about the space solution. My point is, the slash-reversing solution is better for everyone. But this incident made me realize what one of our biggest problems are-- it's not their article. Nobody owns an article, all articles are that of the community, anyone can edit any they want. This seems to be a major contributing problem to this conflict--they think have no right to instill these changes upon them. Like I said before, I did this to try to prevent conflict, so please work with me to hlp resolve it. You and I seem to be the only ones involved that fully understand this, the editors of the article refuse to listen. So, thanks for listening. Aido2002 07:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, while I completely agree behind the reasoning for doing it this way, I think you don't understand that there is a better solution for everyone. People can link to \b\ if they like, then just have that redirect to the correct page,  /b/.  Problem solved.  For the entire community, if they are going to reference /b/, they can use b, \b\, or  /b/ .  It is the absolute easiest solution (thanks to the automation of forwarding, and it comes to the actual name of the alliance.  There are definitly naming problems with the software that cannot be deleted (such as names that have +'s in them, for example, but this can be worked out behind the scenes and noone would see any visual cue that there was an issue (besides the extremly minor "<" on the article, which is definitly worth the other benefits.
 * I recommenced substituting that template when you use it (or templates like welcome/warning templates as well) so that it doesn't need to keep referencing a page when it just needed the original text.
 * Or, you can use Firefox 2.0, it has an in-browser spell check that highlights incorrect words, like bureaucrat (it told me that was spelled wrong and I fixed it :)). Mason11987 08:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do use Firefox 2.0, it's just easier to put in the template (for me). We can link /b/ to the article, thats fine, but the article needs the slashes reversed to that it clasifies it correctly. I thought people would ahve a problem with having it classified wrong, but if they are fine with that, then I agree, having the pages redirect to /b/ > is fine for now. I'm going to move the article to there, make \b\ a redirect, and delete /b/ Alliance. User:Aido2002 23:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I found another issue by accident: The name I gave this section, /b/, brings the user to a subpage of the current page named b/. (Click it to see what I mean.) This will be an issue at some point, so we need to make it clear that when linking there, you need the space.

Your Message to Me
In response to your question I say, is it not up to me whether I choose to categorise my articles under my name or not? Most of the articles written by myself are linked to one another, thus I categorise them under my name. - Conrad Kruschev 10:32 (GMT) 1/12/06
 * Well, that's the thing, they aren't "your" articles, even if you wrote them completly and noone else has touched them at all. Because like I said on your talk page, there is a notice under the edit text box that says "Please note that all contributions to Cyber Nations Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors, and are released under the GNU Free Doc License. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here."  Categories exist in order to allow users to easily find information that is related (such as a nations category, or an alliance category).  Having them categorized under your name doesn't actually help anyone.  Articles should be categorized based on their subject, not on their "authors" pretty much.  Anyone can see who wrote an article by looking at the history, and you can see what you've edited by looking at your watchlist, or looking at your user contributions page. Mason11987 18:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)