Jump to content

About This Club

https://forums.homecomingservers.com/clubs/2-unofficial-homecoming-wiki/?do=overview
  1. What's new in this club
  2. I'm writing down notes in Microsoft Word to use when the wiki is editable again. There's a LOT to update, and I keep running into new things and new information that players need to know! I have information about participation quotas and rewards offered in BAF that no one else has documented before, for example, and I know ATC is waiting on a HUGE rewrite of the Experience page. Worse, a significant amount of time is about to free up for me (next week summer break starts), which is when I normally do the bulk of updating and wiki writing. I really hope the wiki is editable again soon.
  3. Any update on when the migration will be complete and the wiki unlocked? I keep going to update articles, but everything is still locked.
  4. It's been almost 2 months since the wiki was locked. Is there anything we can do to help speed it along?
  5. Yes, sorry I thought I'd posted here. The wiki was locked to read only while it's being transferred to new hardware. Unfortunately with the server stability issues over the last couple of weeks priorities were quickly changed. I'm hoping to get that back on track soon.
  6. It is locked, and has been for several days. As I understand it based on some info on the closed beta discord, it's being migrated to new hardware. Don't quote me on that though, I am just repeating what I have read and have no further knowledge.
  7. Michiyo locked the Homecoming Wiki on Tuesday, March 19th in preparation for it being moved to another server, which hasn't happened yet. When that will be, only @Cipher knows.
  8. Either I'm doing something wrong or the database is locked from editing. I'm hoping it's the former!
  9. You're right. Let's call them "undesirable edits". I did not experience any myself, but have spoken with people whose listings were changed in ways that would prevent someone from being able to visit their base, or had other things done to express disregard. I mean, I can't really speak to the motives of such edits, but as they were not done by the owner and caused some upset, so they seemed malicious. But yes, they could have been mistakes. In some cases, apparently repeated mistakes... And I have asserted numerous times that I don't know that these edits took place on the wiki. Some may have; I have not gone into the depth of research that apparently you have, as it's really a lot of work to assess what was changed when and where. See, I'm not sure how you're looking this information up and determining that there were no malicious edits; to know whether or not a base was changed incorrectly and by someone other than the owner, you'd have to know what the correct information was, and compare that information to any correct changes that had occurred, and know who entered those changes. I personally find this impossible to do, as the original base directory document has been deleted, probably by the owner. The Wiki has a history, yes, but in order to know whether or not a change originated here or was copied from the original directory, you'd have to be able to compare the information. I mean, I suppose you could rule out the editors you know as very unlikely to have done any such edits, but I'm really baffled as to how you'd know what edits should be there, and which ones created or copied the inaccurate listings we found. So, I'm going by the balance of the listings as we found them, plus complaints from some people about listings that changed on their bases, plus the sign that was placed on both the wiki and the directory to ask people to not change other people's listings. And you're undoubtedly correct in assessing that anyone with malicious intent would ignore such a message; my point was rather that it was evidence that this had been a problem. As we have not brought up specific listings as "proof", sure, you can say you haven't "disputed specific things" we've seen, I suppose, except, from the very beginning, you argued that the wiki base listings were not taken from the original directory, even after Easter Bunny pointed to a history showing that GM Kal had made the original download and tables. You've pretty much argued with *some*thing every step of the way, whether it's how we do things, WHY we do them, evidence of malicious edits, how something is worded, or other details. We asserted there were malicious/undesirable edits done, and while we have not given specific examples, we did give general evidence, but things have moved from a general assertion on our part and disagreement on your part to a demand that we produce specific examples in order to "prove" to you they happened and to justify our method of keeping the directory. I have already detailed the work that that would entail, and I do not believe that, now that the original document has been destroyed, it would even be possible, and I see no reason we need do this. It simply does not matter whether there were malicious entries made, or whether simple human mistakes were made: mistakes were made. Inaccuracies in the directories discouraged people from using them. Regardless of the source of undesirable edits, we're sidestepping that with our system. It's just that simple. You are also right that "it would be extraordinary if there weren't such differences"! Well put. And exactly why we want to have the centralized system with controlled access. Of course, we have no control over people who change their codes and do not update them, or remake their bases and don't change the description, but we'll do our best with the information we get. Other than bringing up how you can't understand our rationale for maintaining our system the way we have it set up...repeatedly...you are right, this is the last/latest of the points of disagreement. And I have not responded. Mostly because, I have changed things every time you opened your mouth. And then you come back with one more thing. Even if it's only a very small change in wording, like this last time. It's like you're not happy until everything on the page is exactly how you want it and you have had the last say on it all. Do you go over wording to this extent anywhere else? I doubt it. I have not responded because, afaik, the wiki is still unable to be edited, so it's a moot point, and if I do respond and it's not "fine, we use your wording", I feel you're just going to come back at it again and again until you get what you want. Frankly, I'm tired of feeling like your pov is the only one that matters here. Perhaps your wording IS fine, but is there a requirement here somewhere that I must get all my wiki edits approved through you? Or is the fact that you suggested what you felt was an improvement enough, and now it's up to me as to whether or not I incorporate it the next time I edit that page? If all edits must go through you, that needs to be posted somewhere. But given the fact that you have told me that that is not how the wiki is set up, I don't think that's the case, in which case, since the wiki is free to be edited by anyone who signs up, and I am such an editor, I can make choices that do not have to be run through you, as long as they follow wiki rules. At this point, I'm waiting for the wiki to be accessible for editing again. Michiyo said she'd take a look at the situation then. She's said that perhaps a better place for the listings to be would be the FSBA wiki, but she was unwilling to "push for that". She made no mention of whether or not she disliked the fact that we were maintaining the directory outside of the wiki. So, I'm waiting to see what she says, if the directory is fine as is, or if we should take it down from this wiki. Either works for me; I assume that if she rules that it's fine sourced as it is, then that's the last I will hear from you on the topic, and if she says we can take it down, I assume that you won't have a problem with getting rid of the directory. Generally it's best that you discuss the contents of pages, not the character of other editors. That wasn't a shot at you. You complained you couldn't understand our rationale. If, after my explanation, you still can't understand it, then it's simply a fact that you'll have to live without comprehension in this situation, as I've done my best to explain things. In my world, that's not a shot, that's just a fact. (And I'm sad and a little baffled that you saw it as a shot. ) It's certainly not impugning anyone's character. And the only reason I said it was in response to something you brought up. Here you imply that I was deliberately taking a shot, which makes your statement quite ironic.
  10. That's not evidence of malice. (On the face of it, it would be extraordinary if there weren't such differences; people make mistakes, passcodes change, base themes change.) Well, they certainly didn't do it shortly after reverting any kind of apparently malicious change; that's clear from the history; so I think the most reasonable explanation is that they did it preemptively - and probably not to prevent malicious editing, because why would a malicious editor pay any attention to a polite notice asking them not to do it? And I have said (speaking as someone who has now reviewed basically every edit on all five pages) that I have no evidence of any such, so unless you can find some, I suggest we proceed on the basis that it's never happened. That's simply not true. What I have been saying all along is that I have seen no evidence of malicious edits to base lists on the wiki. If you have seen evidence of malicious edits to the wiki, show it to me! The entire editing history is there. (But please remember the last time you did, it turned out a) it wasn't malicious and b) I'd already examined that specific example and shown that it was obviously not malicious in this very thread). If you haven't, then since I've said precisely nothing about what you've seen happen to the directory, I'm obviously not disputing anything you've seen. Furthermore more and more of what you write seems to have no actual relationship to a disagreement over the content of the wiki. We agree that you will review any edits that have been made in the normal way, add them to your directory, and only then overwrite the wiki's table. We (presumably) agree that if someone _does_ make a malicious edit to the wiki, that procedure will overwrite it. As far as I can see the only actual disagreement (in terms of what the page should actually have written on it) is whether the comment in the source should say "Bases are most easily updated ..." or "You may find it easier to ...". Since the first of these statements is not actually known to be true for any given editor (and it seems very likely for at least some editors it is false), and since your apparent rationale for it is a problem that there is no evidence for and that the procedure we do agree on would fix, it seems obvious that we should prefer the second. Please at least try to address this question in any reply. Generally it's best that you discuss the contents of pages, not the character of other editors.
  11. "Zero evidence" ignores the fact that there were differences between some of the directory entries and the wiki entries. "Zero evidence" ignores the plea on the wiki to not change other people's base listings. I suppose the person who decided to put that into the wiki just did so on a whim? I have said that I don't know for sure that there were malicious entry changes in the wiki; I do know for sure that there were malicious entries, perhaps they were all on the directory, but if that's so, how did information on the wiki get to be incorrect? Because some of the information *was* incorrect. I am not going to dig through all of the history to figure it out, I just look at the end result and know 1.) of the entries of bases that were mine on the wiki, I entered exactly zero of them (altho I made two small changes in '21 to existing listings), and I know other builders did not enter THEIR bases, and the reason I made the changes is because the information that was there was wrong. Malicious? Not likely in that case, but still wrong information. But since neither I (nor the others) were the ones to enter the information, clearly there was opportunity for anyone to have entered anything. No one checks to be sure the information is CORRECT, just that it's been ENTERED correctly. It could even have been that information was messed with on the document that the listing was taken from, entered into the wiki in good faith, and then corrected on the directory again. But 2) the fact that different lists had different information, and some lists were accurate and some were not, and 3) the fact that anyone could edit the original directory, and the fact that 4) several people I know of had their base's information messed with and 5) people felt the need to post signs asking that people not do that, all should tell a reasonable person that it was a problem. And thus, we are controlling the ability to edit the master list on the document that supplies the wiki with the listings, thus ensuring that the wiki entries are also accurate. We already chased down several different sources of base listings to consolidate it, we'd like to not have to do that again, but in deference to wiki rules(?) or at least tradition, we will add in entries made to the wiki to the document before renewing the listings when they need renewal. But we've been over all of this with you, and you just refuse to accept any of it. You refuse to accept that we've seen what we've seen. But we have, and so we've chosen our response, and I guess you'll just have to live without comprehension, because that's just how it is, and endlessly explaining is clearly going nowhere.
  12. I don't propose to remove them either, so I'm not sure what choice I'm making here. At this point, as far as I can make out, your entire rationale for wanting changes to go through you is malicious editing, in spite of the fact that there is zero evidence that this ever happened. That doesn't make any sense to me.
  13. I appreciate your input, AtC, thanks. 🙂
  14. I've not weighed in further because I feel like I've more or less stated my thoughts. I think you, Easter Bunny, and Matsiyan are better qualified than anyone to oversee base-related stuff on the wiki, and I think you have just as much right as anyone to edit as you see fit. Or not to edit, if you decide that you don't want to deal with the wiki base lists, and based on this thread I can understand why you might arrive at that decision. Regarding the removal of the base lists from the wiki, I'm not opposed to that. I'm not convinced that is the best option, because I think if they are removed, someone will just add them back in some form at a later date, and we'll be back at square one. If you do wish to avoid the wiki going forward, perhaps the best option is just to leave the lists as-is, with a note directing folks to the Google lists as the most up-to-date source. The wiki lists are certainly more up-to-date now than before, and perhaps in the future someone will be motivated to update them with info from the Google lists. That's not an ideal solution, and perhaps there is a better one.
  15. I'm not sure that option is available. You can't unilaterally remove them. I said it was your choice. I would be doing nothing, but I am giving assent. Nobody else is weighing in. Regardless, I'm asking on Michiyo's discord for permission.
  16. You didn't do it. Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by a comment? On my proposed version of the page, <!-- If you are adding a base by editing the wiki, recommend adding it at the top to make it easier for the CRs to copy the information into their base directory. You may find it easier to follow the instructions in External Links to add your base to the CRs' directory. They will add it here shortly. --> appears when you edit the page. This is a comment. It isn't shown to people just viewing the page. That's the distinction here. You have never added a comment. Yes. If you actually read this thread you will find that those passcodes were added by BlackSpectre an hour before that. It wasn't malicious at all - it was just an error on their part which they rapidly corrected. That's because there isn't actually any evidence. There's been one suggested case which turned out to be a simple error. Furthermore, if someone was to make a malicious change, you'd detect it when you reviewed changes since the last directory upload, something you already said you intend to do. You have in fact said that changes have to go through you; you've said that to make changes you should be contacted and A reasonable person reading that would conclude that changes added normally would be overwritten. It's not the case that every facet of your contribution has to go through me - obviously not since your version of the page is _still up_. How about "It may be easier to update bases in the base directory ..." ? It's not at all clear to me that it is "most easy" for a wiki editor to chase off somewhere else. I'm not sure that option is available. You can't unilaterally remove them.
  17. I did mean, the previous version to ours. As in, we did not put it there, it was there already. And you're right, the official Wiki does not include base lists. And I will say, if you'd prefer to remove base lists altogether, we can certainly do that. We were updating to correct. The wiki does not tend to be the go-to place for base information anyway, and our efforts to maintain integrity are only complicated by maintaining the files here as well. Er... a comment in the source doesn't appear to an ordinary user viewing the page. It's only visible to people editing it. That's an appropriate place to have editing instructions. Right, and it appears I was not clear enough. This was in response to your suggestion to viewers of the page as to how and where they should edit. Apparently, when you make a comment and leave it on the source page, that's okay, but if we did it, it's not. We would prefer to just leave off instructions about editing on the wiki at all; anyone who is there and inclined to edit can figure out how, just as on any other page. Obviously I appreciate you have a lot of information about bases, yes, but that is not the same as saying that you should declare that all changes to a page should go through you. That is not at all the point I was making. I was pointing to the evidence of malicious edits. We found the differences. I can't say, as I stated, exactly where and when all the edits occurred, but we know THAT they occurred, either on the old directory or in the wiki because we've seen the differences in the directories as they existed. We know there was inaccurate information on the wiki. We know there was inaccurate information on the old directory. We know there are petty people that want to sabotage others, and some that are jealous of others. THIS is the information you do not recognize, you refuse to entertain, despite repeated assurances from us. We've seen it. It's why we are keeping such control over entries: we are safeguarding the information. The actual information is largely coming from the builders themselves; we just keep it from being changed to something it should not be. Here's an example of an edit that BlackSpectre fixed: 19:36, 25 December 2022‎ BlackSpectre talk contribs‎ m 4,096 bytes +527‎ Fixed a bunch of other broken links, passcodes, and text. Someone had copied the Costmic Transport passcode onto every copy link. That is just one example on the first history I checked. And we've asserted this numerous times as the biggest part of the reason we redid this and want to maintain protections over editing, and you simply refuse to accept any of it, asserting time and time again, against any evidence, that there were no malicious edits on the wiki. Oh, and note the date. I think that the reason you do not generally have a problem with people abusing editing privileges on the wiki is that most of the rest of your information is not like this. If you had issues with every area the way we've had issues with this one, I believe editing in the wiki would be much different, and perhaps there WOULD be safeguards similar to what we have in place. Most builders are wonderful and trustworthy, but as in any game, there are always a few bad actors, and if you were into bases at all, you might quickly realize that bases are as much a source of pride, ego, and stature as admired costumes, badge status, and powerful character builds, so for some, just seeing another base listed that's perhaps getting recognition and is owned by someone hated, is enough to motivate those people to put in something malicious, or, as in the Cosmic Transport correction, try and promote their own base over others that might be similar. But I do not need to know or understand why to know we need to safeguard against it. We have not said so, and in fact, if anyone wants to help make sure the content is accurate and up to date, we're happy to include them. But conversely, it should be obvious that every facet of our contribution to the wiki should not have to go through you. That is very much the appearance here. So, that was all pretty much just to clear up apparent misunderstandings of what I had meant. Regarding the base list, here is my understanding: I will monitor changes and handle them as they require. We will download the directory to the wiki when it needs to be updated with new information. No references to editing the wiki should be on the source page, but visitors will be informed of the existence of the directory and that they can enter information there, for ease and consistency, and if not there, then they may contact us. Wiki editors know how to edit the wiki if desired. As to it can be added, but we'd prefer this version, which would replace: To update the directory source please contact CRs @Dacy or @Easter Bunny or submit a ‘Base Directory Update Request’. We would appreciate it if base owners who have not yet updated the information for their bases would do so. Note this table will be overwritten periodically by the CRs with a fresh copy from the directory. With this: Bases are most easily updated in the base directory [link], to keep the identifying tags consistent and easily searchable. To update in this way, follow the link or contact CR @Dacy or CR @Easter Bunny to submit a base to the directory, or to update a base that has missing information. This will avoid mentioning editing the wiki on the source page, which you said was inappropriate. Those that do edit the wiki will know what to do if that is what they prefer, just like for all the other pages in the wiki, but it provides information they need if they want to keep their base entry consistent with how other bases are displayed and searched for. It does not threaten that their input will be erased, and it does not duplicate what has been said already. So, options: we're done here, having worked out concerns and compromises, or the other option could be no lists on the wiki; and, I leave that up to you. That's your choice, but either way, I want to be DONE.
  18. It's not, no - the Paragon Wiki didn't have it (or, as far as I can see, pages of this kind at all, so I'm a little confused about this). It was added to the Homecoming Wiki in January 2023. (However, tl;dr - maybe skip to the end, I hope we can reach an agreement.) It hasn't been a problem at all; as discussed above, there don't seem to have been any malicious wiki base list edits ever, even in the 2 years before that warning was added. Obviously I appreciate you have a lot of information about bases, yes, but that is not the same as saying that you should declare that all changes to a page should go through you. Uninventive and SaphirantCross know far more about running City of Heroes on Linux than I do, but that doesn't mean they can do that with https://homecoming.wiki/w/index.php?title=City_of_Heroes_on_Linux. That wouldn't change in the scenario I envisage. As far as I can see all that would change is that occasionally you'd have to copy a manual edit into your directory - very occasionally, perhaps once every 2 months. Er... a comment in the source doesn't appear to an ordinary user viewing the page. It's only visible to people editing it. That's an appropriate place to have editing instructions. I don't want you (or anyone) asserting external control over any page on the wiki. If you don't do that, I'm perfectly happy for you to edit it. To have this additional information effects a great improvement - I certainly don't object to _that_. You can add pages to your "watchlist" (and I expect any page you edit is added by default) by clicking the star at the top right, next to View history. In Preferences you can set "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". However, part of what I'm saying is I hope even that's not necessary. If you're checking the history immediately before a bulk upload, it's extremely easy then and there to see what (if anything) has been changed (with the "Compare Selected Revisions" button). To be honest, my aim in writing "If you are adding a base by editing the wiki, recommend adding it at the top to make it easier for the CRs to copy the information into their base directory" was not to _encourage_ making manual edits, but to make sure if they were made, they all ended up in the same place to make it easier to copy the information. Hence I have no great attachment to that wording. How about "Rather than adding a base to this list, you may find it easier to follow the instructions in External Links to add your base to the CRs' directory. They will add it here shortly" ?
  19. Yes, revision history can be cleaned up if needed.
  20. That is from the previous wiki. I don't oppose losing it, but it illustrates that this has been a problem, and I see no reason why it would not continue to be so. I will admit that I don't know if there were malicious wiki edits, or if all of the problems stemmed from having open editing on the original document, but either way, we'd like to avoid the issue entirely. I will admit to frustration here. Do you recognize at all that this is our area of expertise? That perhaps we have knowledge and experience you do not? It has never felt as though you do. Yes, you are a big wiki editor. No, this is not typical of wiki edits, to control things externally, but the reason that statement is there, the reason so many base entries weren't accurate or didn't match the directory is because there WERE malicious edits. Sad to say, there are malicious and petty people in this game. This is something that we've learned. This is why we feel that editing control is important. These are the reasons we wish to keep the system as we have set it up: The information is centralized, so we don't have to gather together base information from multiple locations again. We maintain presences on HC discord, our own discord, the in game base building channel, this wiki, the forums, and of course are available in game when we can be, and that's not even talking about what else we do. If we see a base not in the directory, we encourage the owner to enter it. By not encouraging people to enter bases on the wiki, we'd like to think that there's less of a chance that they will, so less of a chance that we'll have to enter the base ourselves. Yes, that's minimal work, but every little bit adds up. We'd definitely prefer the owner or builder to do the entering, as there are LOTS of bases. It's much easier to do a bulk copy paste than to individually edit the wiki, and we know it's correct. You probably couldn't do that with other sections of the wiki, but in this case, with a table such as this is, and this sort of information, it is much more efficient. It's our opinion that it's more efficient, but I think that there's an objective case to be made there as well. And, the information, when entered on the directory document, will have the drop-down tags to choose from, whereas the wiki does not have those. Therefore, any bases entered on the wiki without being able to reference the document itself may not conform to the other bases' information. It only makes sense to operate from the point of the greatest number of entries in a centralized system, and as you pointed out, that's not the wiki. So in short, we feel this method is efficient, accurate, and we see nothing wrong with how it's set up. The wiki is not just a link to a document, as it was in that first thing that EB tried, which we admitted was not what should have been, but this is information in wiki format in the wiki. It's accurate, it's up to date. and the system is efficient. No, it's not how things are done typically, but most information in the wiki is not changing as much as the base directory is from week to week, currently. The reason we do not want to have a statement telling people that if they are making an entry, where to do so, is because we do not want to encourage them to make entries on the wiki at all. (And what happened to "I also in general don't think it's appropriate to have editing instructions on the page"?) You have been the ONLY editor weighing in. And I will point out, EB and I are editors as well. As is anyone who registers and does it. So does not seem so much a "discussion" as it seem to be more "this is what I object to, and here are the changes I made that I want to implement". The few who have voiced opinions have been generally supportive of our efforts here. Look, your expertise is in editing the wiki, overall. It's a big wiki. There is a lot of information that needs to be edited and updated. Surely this need not take up so much of your attention? I do not know if this is your intent, but it's felt like you don't want us to be here, you don't want us editing the wiki, and you don't seem to care as much about the accuracy of the information as you do about how precisely it is entered and presented. Alone, you have made what should have been a relatively simple thing to accomplish into an unpleasant experience that in truth, has been very discouraging and time consuming. I don't want conflict, but this whole back and forth has gone on so long, and I feel it might be helpful for you to understand this side of the exchange, how things are coming across. I'm pretty sure our frustration has been clear, but I'm explaining why. So discouraging, in fact, that EB really does not want to work with the wiki at all, at this point, so I will be handling edits, with help from Mats when needed. We never "forbid" people from entering anything. We did ask that they contact us, but nowhere did we forbid the entry of information. We did not provide a place for them to do so, either, and that was entirely intentional. We also clearly warn that information they enter here but do not enter on the directory itself risks being overwritten. We do not want to tell them where to place something they're entering. There are no drop-down menus to help them with what terms we've used for the bases. The directory was designed to be simple to enter information into. Information entered on the document will be consistent with the information for the other bases. Information entered on the document can't be changed by someone seeking to make another's base inaccessible or invisible. Realize, the first tables were created from the old directory. Changes from that point on were made mostly by wiki edits. The wiki was out of date, the wiki had inaccuracies. We're just not going to return to that method, because it's demonstrated that it does not work. Was that the fault of entries to the wiki? Unlikely, imo, but still possible. However, we know that if we limit the entries to the source we download into the wiki, it will not happen again. I propose a compromise. As I said already, EB is out as far as editing the wiki goes, and I am willing to promise that I will monitor for changes/input to the wiki directory that is apart from entries to our directory. Is there a way to make that easier and get notifications from changes to a particular section of the wiki? That would certainly mean I could immediately take whatever action is needed. We will remove the warning about losing anything entered because of the downloads that will be done; however, we also will not encourage people to edit on the wiki by telling them where to place a new base entry. Instead, we will leave up the part encouraging people to contact either EB or myself if they do not wish to put an entry into the document itself, and of course, encourage people to please update their bases on the document. This way, you get what you wanted in that we have no warnings or other text that gives the impression that editing the wiki is forbidden. I will check for entries and changes to the document, and address them as needed. The document will be kept up to date as needed. Right now, changes are fairly frequent, but I anticipate that will die down. On the whole, this gives the wiki a much needed update in this particular area. It will be kept up to date, unlike the last table. It will be monitored to keep it accurate, unlike the last table. And it's being sourced from experts in the field, in the wiki tradition. Editing is allowed, but not encouraged. And perhaps both of us can move on to other pressing work and stop devoting quite so much time to discussion? I fervently hope this sounds acceptable, because I'm ready to be done with this.
  21. I appreciate we want different things. That is why we are having a discussion where we can explain _why_ we want what we want and where other interested editors can weigh in. One of us might change their mind - just as although my preferred option was to remove all ERP bases, hence the edit removing one as "clearly inappropriate" and me being a bit embarrassed about letting it slip in to begin with, when Draeth Darkstar chimed in supporting what you proposed, I said we might as well go with that.[1] Failing that we might agree to abide by a third party's decision (eg, AboveTheChemist) or see what higher authority says. However, I'm not clear why you are so opposed to it. It's the work of a moment to check the revision history, something you intend to do anyway - and since (for example) seven bases were added to the Everlasting list (by far the biggest) in 2023, I really don't see that capturing information from manual edits is going to cause you any particular problems. From my point of view I don't think it is appropriate for any editor to assert external control over any page. Suppose I think (and it's likely) that I am the largest contributor (post-2019) to the Player's Guide to the Cities. Perhaps I would find it more convenient to edit it on my computer and have people send me updates. However, I would not even consider putting a a note on it saying people should send me updates and that I might overwrite any changes they make. I also in general don't think it's appropriate to have editing instructions on the page, rather than as comments on the source. The former is shown to users who just want to use the page. The editing instructions should be seen only by editors. (Indeed, the existing text saying "Please do not remove or recategorize other people's base postings" should probably be moved.) I've edited https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/User:Thunderforce/Reunion_Bases so the comment in the source now says: "If you are adding a base by editing the wiki, recommend adding it at the top to make it easier for the CRs to copy the information into their base directory. You may find it easier to follow the instructions in External Links to add your base to the CRs' directory. They will add it here shortly." I think that's a reasonable way to make that option visible to editors, but without any suggestion that editing the page in the normal way is forbidden. However, given the discussion above, I'm not aware of any malicious base edits on the Wiki, so I don't think continuing to permit ordinary editing opens the door to that particular issue. [1] I appreciate there has been a "no ERP bases" rule declared so this is moot, but it's an example of the kind of way one might hope this discussion works.
  22. Ultra Alt, I feel I must apologize for my confusion, and for not double checking what was posted. (And I deleted a bunch of stuff I'd misunderstood) However much of an idiot I have been here, I do feel it's unfair to paint the entire base building community with such a broad brush. It's a very good community, and I understand if you do not want to interact with ME, but I hope you do not avoid the community just because of my mistakes. There IS another CR, so if you need something, you don't have to talk to me at all, if you think I'm awful. Again, you have my sincere apology, fwiw. EDIT: and I messed it up again. I have been missing sleep, and just BLEAH. I AM an idiot. I did post that, but I should have omitted your name from the quote. *Shakes head* I am very sorry for not doing that. I thought I'd been directed to talk about it here.
  23. No need to be sorry. I recognize that it was constructive feedback and appreciate your willingness to help 🙂
  24. Gotcha, I didn't realize that was part of the process as well so that seems to address the concern I had in point number 1. Sorry for the confusion!
  25. We understand that there are those that are unwilling or untrusting of working through Google, so we didn't make that the only way to add to the directory. But we also didn't want to advertise an "Enter Your Base Info Here" section on the wiki that encourages bypassing the directory either. The guidance we've placed on the wiki for these instances is to contact Dacy or I to have this information updated. And then, despite that, we are also continuing to monitor Michiyo's Discord for anyone out there that treats the base pages like anyone would probably assume a wiki page can be treated and does update it directly. Should that happen we would enter their information into the directory and it would feed back into the wiki on the next bulk update. Great note! We will definitely keep that in mind to inform anyone requesting a de-listing of their base from the directory that they should probably change their passcode from whatever had previously been listed for this reason. I appreciate you mentioning this!
  26.  

×
×
  • Create New...