Deadliest Fiction Wiki talk:Administrators

''This page is restricted to administrators only! Editing can only be done by those with sysop privileges.

To support some thing use this:

To refuse to support something use this:

If you are neutral and offer your own opinion use this:

New Administrator
As you know we will be having a new administrator coming in but I'm proposing some probation time thing for the admin. They will not be able to use their powers for a month and they must remain active for that month. If they do remain fairly active during that month (2-3 days per week) then they keep their powers, if not they will demoted and the power will go the candidate that had the second highest votes. Oh yeah and make sure when you reply you put this ":" like Pacheco's reply. If you want to post a reply to a reply put two colons. Thank you Omnicube1 21:51, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * i think this is a perfect idea Omni, the last admin we promoted were'nt always on all the time, we this kind of probation it will show how imprtant it is to be an admin. MrPacheco101 21:57, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable, and is proably a good idea to make sure someone doesn't get elected and just flake on there duty.User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 04:16, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Very much true Omnicube1 22:07, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

New Rule
I propose a new rule, for people who know that they will be inactive for more than a month must notify an admin and then that admin will notify all sysops. This will help prevent confusion and innocent people being blocked. Omnicube1 23:55, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * [[File:Yes.png]] I support this because I proposed it Omnicube1 23:59, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * [[File:Yes.png]] i support it because it keeps blocking at a minimum.MrPacheco101 00:01, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * [[File:No.png]] I don't support, because why would someone be blocked for inactivity? If someone's hacked an account and is flaming on that account, the account should still be banned. Useless rule. - Leo Lab 00:14, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can change it so it only applies to admins because I made this rule mainly due to Astro's inactivity and he is a bureaucrat Omnicube1 00:17, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how it relates to being banned. - Leo Lab 00:25, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The post can be filled by someone who is actually more active and will actually take their job seriously. Omnicube1 00:50, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I get that an inactive admin needs to be replaced. If it was that, I'd change the [[File:No.png]] to a [[File:Yes.png]]. What I'm looking for is an explanatin of why blocking is relevent.- Leo Lab 00:56, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at, blocking would just make them more inactive. I'll take that out too, so bottom line is: tell us if you're going to be inactive or you'll lose your post Omnicube1 00:59, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. That works. Now it's a [[File:Yes.png]]. - Leo Lab 14:33, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd say ban them unless they give notice. If a regular user goes dark then whatever. But once you have responsibility you're expected to stick around, going dark without notice is unacceptable for an Admin.User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 20:36, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will add this rule only for admins but there will be a compromise! Omnicube1 03:27, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Return
Well on Thursday, Mexican spider block will be removed. I want you guys on your full alert, I predict he might get his revenge some way either by vandalism or spamming. Be on the lookout! Omnicube1 01:04, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude the guy said he was leaving the wiki so who cares he might not even return.MrPacheco101 04:49, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * If he doesn't, I'll be happy. If he does, and if he causes trouble, I may slap him with a permaban. I'm in no mood for his bullshit. - Leo Lab 14:33, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * He's coming back tomorrow and if he does return those on his Those I have lost respect for list might be the target of his vandalism Omnicube1 00:33, December 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * the last thing that i want are my most recent articles i made be marked with vandalism those things took me hours to do and alot of information to garner up, if he does something to it there will be hell to pay.MrPacheco101 01:48, December 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * So far so good, nothing terrible Omnicube1 05:23, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * no need to worry i think he changed his way, i mean the guy send me an apology and named a video game character after me MrPacheco101 05:31, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * He hasn't for me I think he's personally attacking me on the DW Wiki like this: "Ignorance as in people acting like jackasses and douches.The average douch(in my mind) listenst to rap, is a jackass, and plays CoD" he knows I listen to rap and play Call of Duty I'm just going to ignore him if he apologizes cause I know he's just doing it for the sake of it and he's not being sincere. Omnicube1 05:44, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well whats done i done im already out of my anger stage.MrPacheco101 05:46, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

New Rule 2
I propose a new rule: Articles that contain a large amount of grammatical/writing mistakes will be deleted. I suggest that the "expiration date" would be 2 1/2 months-or around 75 days. Because Swg66 won't be active and seems like Death'sapprentice77 doesn't seem to take his admin responsibilities serious I'll probably only past this rule by a 3/4 of all sysops. I thank The Deadliest Warrior for suggesting this. Omnicube1 03:35, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't cleaned up by that timeframe, it should be deleted. - Leo Lab 04:01, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a reasonable suggestion. I'm for it, as long as the folks making the articles are given a warning and given a chance to improve. CuchulainSetanta 05:08, December 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey you voted for your first proposal as an admin! Omnicube1 05:25, December 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * [[File:Yes.png]] I support this as well, as long as they get a warning as CS said. Death&#39;sapprentice77 19:54, December 29, 2010 (UTC) Ps sorry for not really taking my duties seriously.


 * It's fine I was just worried that we would have another inactive admin Omnicube1 20:51, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Layout Builder
Wikia is introducing a new tool called Layout Builder. As the name suggests it will help make pages easier to make. It seems that it is very easy to use. I have signed up for it but at this point I do not know whether our wiki will be able to test it. The main reason why I signed up for this is because our articles are not similar looking and in order to be a productive and professional wiki our articles must look atleast 90% similar. So post your ideas/opinions below. Thank you

FINALLY SOMEHING HAT MAKES IT WASIER!!!!!MrPacheco101 23:44, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

This is good. Now I just have to get off my lazy AP-laden ass and make those articles similar. - Leo Lab 00:44, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Lol AP classes, I need to take some next year I have no honors this year Omnicube1 00:48, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Why are all the replies in small print? I don't see a tag anywhere. - Leo Lab 01:22, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Probably my new sig thats messing everything up I have to look for a fix Omnicube1 01:38, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Ok I fixed it I didn't close the bracket thing

Layout Builder has been activated! Search Special:LayoutBuilder!

Good! :D Death&#39;sapprentice77 04:24, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Perm-Ban MS
Ok I don't know about you but Mexican spider sure isn't learning after the two previous blocks. He continues to flame people and after the new year I have zero-tolerance for flaming or any disrespect toward another user. I believe we should permenantly ban him because if he keeps this up our wiki will look so unprofessional. Plus, if we are to have a total content revamp, he is lessening our chances of getting that.


 * [[File:Yes.png]]. Please. I was about to do this myself before you put this up. EDIT: It's also more effort than it's worth to respond to him without flaming. He's the type of person no wiki wants.- LeoLab 18:01, January 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just ban him i tried my best to change the way he treats people but it wasnt working. my heart goes out to him thoughMrPacheco101 18:36, January 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah this sounds pretty bad. We have no other choice. Death&#39;sapprentice77 20:23, January 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright can't wait to do this
 * I haven't actually seen any of his handiwork, and I'm reluctant to ban a contender from my DF Championships, but if the rest of you feel it must be done, I won't object. CuchulainSetanta 23:38, January 16, 2011 (UTC)Yes.png
 * I haven't actually seen any of his handiwork, and I'm reluctant to ban a contender from my DF Championships, but if the rest of you feel it must be done, I won't object. CuchulainSetanta 23:38, January 16, 2011 (UTC)Yes.png

Warrior Definition
I was thinking that we need a solid definition for what (or who) can be classified as a warrior, so that in the future we can avoid arguments over whether a person qualify s as a warrior, and so that people don't end up using someone who isn't a warrior.

For the sake of this wiki the strictest definition of a warrior is one who is engaged in or experienced in battle.

But I think we also need to identify what a warrior is not.

For example just because someone is in the military they aren't necessarily a warrior, there are many non-combat positions in the military, a working knowledge of fire-arms a warrior does not make. This would apply more to an individual person than a group of people.

These are some ideas I have for a definition for this wiki, but it needs more input.--User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 02:38, January 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * On this topic, I'd define a warrior as a person who fights regularly and proficiently, if not for a living then at the very least in the scope of his/her/their particular media. Examples from the Mistborn series: Vin fights regularly, but not for a living. She fights often enough to be good at it, therefore she is a warrior. Hazekillers fight for a living, therefore they are warriors. Elend occasionally fights, but his principal role is that of a diplomat/king. He has fought and kicked some serious ass on occasion, but his role in the story is more negotiatory (is that a word? and is it spelled right?) rather than combative. He is not a warrior. Dockson has never fought, even though he is part of the military, so he cannot be a warrior. That, ladies and gentlemen, was my opinion. - LeoLab 02:53, January 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Vigilantes allowed? For example, Erica Bain from The Brave One or Nick Hume from Death Sentence?

I think that the major requirement to meet the idea of warrior is that they have experience fighting in life or death situations. When the show talks about someone like a Spartan or Ninja, I'm assuming there talking about one that isn't in the first fight. So if someone is say a mob enforcer, they could be considered a warrior because there going to be pretty used to fighting and killing, some goes for vigilantes or anyone who is actively fighting as either profession or it's a major part of there life. Training is all well and good but, unless they actually have experience in some form of real combat, I wouldn't classify them as a warrior.--User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 20:31, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Another definition, at least in my opinion, is that a warrior is someone who fights against other warriors of equal skill on a regular basis. Of course, this may not apply to all warriors, and some might stretch this rule quite a bit, but a great deal of warriors fall under this category. CuchulainSetanta 23:40, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

So this is basically what I think we're coming to define a warrior as, but please correct anything I miss understood.

A Warrior Is. Someone who on a fairly regular basis, fights in and is experience combat, regardless of true profession. This can include military professionals but also criminal, vigilantes, terrorists etc.

A Warrior is not Necessarily and assassin (would depend on the individual) Necessarily in the military. Someone who had some form of fighting skill, but doesn't use them in actual life threatening combat. This would included a non-combatant member of the armed forces.--User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 18:54, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Another Website
I was googling stuff when it came to my attention of the existence of a youtube channel 'DeadliestFictionalWarriors'. I went to their website and found that not only do they have same ideas as us but basing off the information, started it around summer (in america). And whats even worse, another wiki has also done this and they started up in Octob. so I ask, did we start before them? and What should we do about it? 09:02, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

DeadliestFictionalWarrior coming out this summer just like us is mere quicidence, but the other wiki is a mere copy of us, thay look like s---t and completly unorganizd, forget abot the VsWikiMrPacheco101 15:48, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it was mere coincidence but there is also another wikia wiki (because this Deadliest Fictional Wiki isn't supported by Wiki) called VS Battles Wiki. They do have a right to keep their's (but ours is way better ;)

There goes my hopes of a youtube channel.. although their one would have been better so its all good. besides, once we go independent we dont need to worry about all that. -- 23:49, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Youtube channel? For the DF Wiki?

Image Troubles
I'm trying to add the articles for my final Season 2 warriors, but I cannot upload any new images onto the site. When I try, it doesn't even act like the "Upload" button has even been pressed. Has anyone else been having this problem? And for those who have recently uploaded new images without problems, do you have any solutions?

CuchulainSetanta 23:59, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

There was a community message a while ago that said that image uploading would be disabled due to maintanence. - LeoLab 00:42, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know how long this is going to last? And new images are obviously being uploaded. What's the secret there? CuchulainSetanta 00:39, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * You still can't upload images properly? Maybe something wrong with your Java because I believe the problem has been resolved
 * The normal uploading is still broken for me at least (i.e Add a Photo in the toolbar, and the image placeholder in new articles), but I have figured out adding a new photo to the sidebar you see next to articles works fine. If anyone else is experiencing trouble, try this. CuchulainSetanta 01:53, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Templates
Ive just been going around to various wikis and such, just doing the usuall stuf that I do. I saw a lot of themed templates and all that sort of thing and thought how our current template scheme is a little.. disorganised and basic. I was thinking maybe we could revamp our templates by giving them our own little touch. The army thing is good but maybe we could be a bit more fictional. Like the admins only template. instead of saying 'This is for admins eyes only', we could say 'The Gods have protected this article from mortal editing'. and things like that. just give it a more fictional feel. Is it just me? opinions please --Astrotorical 07:02, March 17, 2011 (UTC)