Difference between revisions of "User talk:CHiNback"
(reply to belgraves comments.) |
|||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
::<span style="color:#060">So there you have it... my suggestion about how we can deal with the concerns we all have concerning our user pages and the effort we put into making them. I think this is a good idea and with some discussion, would be worth attempting.</span><br>{{User:Belgrave/Sig}} | ::<span style="color:#060">So there you have it... my suggestion about how we can deal with the concerns we all have concerning our user pages and the effort we put into making them. I think this is a good idea and with some discussion, would be worth attempting.</span><br>{{User:Belgrave/Sig}} | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | :::whilst it <b>sounds</b> like a good idea, it will inevitably end in edit wars and, to be frank, childish "he stole my bold tags" arguments. the whole idea of the license is that it completely avoids this. everyone knows that anything you put on the wiki can be copied, even if that person claims it is their own work, and there is nothing you can do about it. it's the only way to ensure such arguments don't occur, a simple unilateral ruling that anything may be copied. as for attribution, the same occurs, sure, it's nice to reference the original author, but it's not required, and if you don't, nothing will happen.<br>to have the rules you propose, sooner or later you need to set a line in the sand, which means you have to define *exactly* what constitutes "copied code", and how is that accomplished? does putting your text in grey count as copying chinback's page, for example, what about using those shiny progress bars he has, what if i put them in a different order, or with different colours.... the possibilities are endless. by using the current license of "it can be copied, if you don't like it, don't post", you immedeately avoid all the quagmire of deciding exactly what is and is not copying. [[User:ZidaneT|ZidaneT]] 03:55, 5 May 2008 (BST) | ||
Revision as of 02:55, 5 May 2008
Comments
Know of any good Hell Forge calculating sites we could link to from the items pages similar to how we're linking the items to the auction house?
I'm also thinking of moving the lengthy tables of items and their stats off the item category pages so the categories don't take as long to load and you don't have to scroll all the way to the bottom but it would still allow sorting stats on a separate page. Any suggestions for this?
— Belgrave, Moderator / Sysop Talk Message PM
I don't think that hellforge calculator was updated to take into account the latest hellforge changes, but it might be usable to an extent. That idea might have to be put on hold until someone else makes a decently usable one.
I was thinking it might be best to have all of that specific type of item on the page, mostly so people can compare stats, but also because there are a few items which are clearly the best of that type of item for more than 50-60 levels such as the Rune of Decay. It would definitely be a long page, but if sorted by every 10 levels the way it is now, it should be usable. Would we want other related pages such as "Helmet Images"? If so, I think we would do something similar to the item category navigation template but for that specific item type...
Item Category • Sortable Item List • Item Images • Etc.
Also, I was working with the creature images and I think about 15 images per page (3 across, 5 down) would work best. The problem is that the numbers only work to 546 and then they need that long number/letter combo filename and I'm not sure how exactly to go about finding all of those and putting them into easily organized pages. Any suggestions with that?
— Belgrave, Moderator / Sysop Talk Message PM
I'll work on getting those creature images. That site does show the best available items by stats, but it only goes up to lvl 300 and will not be updated anymore. So, I'll put together something for the helmets page and we can see how that works out.
— Belgrave, Moderator / Sysop Talk Message PM
w00t
...waiting for you to write a "Best Equipment for Level 166" guide...
Boo
Place Boo-ish comments here.
thank you for your message. there are only two things for me to say about it: first i have read that copy notice some weeks ago (at belgraves profile page) and second: i can't see any reason why i should not take any fee for my service...if somebody don't want it, they just don't have to ask me... i only don't want to see my hole page copied or most of its content and read in next line that person offers his/her help with creating wiki pages...it's just that i can't believe those persons really can create wiki pages without copying everything. PumaDiAce
- pumadice, by entering your page onto the wiki, you allow it to be copied. i don't think there is anything wrong at all with you offering to make someones page for a fee, a lot of users don't know how to edit the wiki and that's probably a good service. but as for people just copying your page completely... well, that's allowed.ZidaneT 17:17, 28 April 2008 (BST)
i know thats allowed but i don't want others to copy my hole page and tell then it's their own work...
and to CHiNback's message: i don't use my posts to get money and fsp are no money. i understand the words noncommercial and don't use posts to make money as making real money. everything in my posts is related to the game and has no relation to real money. furthermore it's free to everybody to decide wether they want me to help them or not... PumaDiAce
- "i know thats allowed but i don't want others to copy my hole page and tell then it's their own work..."... there isn't anything you can do to stop it. once you post on here, it can be edited, copied, mangled, eaten by minors, set on fire, cause the destruction of the earth and all life on it, used to end wars and cure all disease, etc. ZidaneT 14:39, 2 May 2008 (BST)
- I am trying to think of a good compromise here... Charging for your services to make someone a user page is fine, but trying to restrict the use of the code goes against the copyright license used by this wiki so technically we cannot enforce non-usage of our code. It was primarily the threats to remove posts using your code that led me to post the notice at the bottom of my user page.
- However, I think it may be possible that we, as a group and as some of the primary contributers to the wiki, take a stand against copying someone's code without permission or without giving attribution to that user for their original contribution. This would require us to decide on a list of rules/requirements that would apply to everyone in the group, and a template we can post at the bottom of our user pages to let everyone else know about the standards to which we hold ourselves. A thorough listing of what adhering users can and cannot do would be posted on the template page.
- Therefore, I suggest the following:
- Users will not copy another's code without permission or giving attribution.
- Users will not use another's code and claim it as their own (excepting major layout changes, css?, and very basic code arrangements).
- Users are free but not obligated to charge for the service of creating another's user page.
- Restrictions would apply to non-game information pages only (users/players & guilds). Pages for items, creatures, etc, should be freely copyable to maintain a bit of uniformity for game related information.
- Therefore, I suggest the following:
- So there you have it... my suggestion about how we can deal with the concerns we all have concerning our user pages and the effort we put into making them. I think this is a good idea and with some discussion, would be worth attempting.
— Belgrave, Moderator / Sysop Talk Message PM
- So there you have it... my suggestion about how we can deal with the concerns we all have concerning our user pages and the effort we put into making them. I think this is a good idea and with some discussion, would be worth attempting.
- whilst it sounds like a good idea, it will inevitably end in edit wars and, to be frank, childish "he stole my bold tags" arguments. the whole idea of the license is that it completely avoids this. everyone knows that anything you put on the wiki can be copied, even if that person claims it is their own work, and there is nothing you can do about it. it's the only way to ensure such arguments don't occur, a simple unilateral ruling that anything may be copied. as for attribution, the same occurs, sure, it's nice to reference the original author, but it's not required, and if you don't, nothing will happen.
to have the rules you propose, sooner or later you need to set a line in the sand, which means you have to define *exactly* what constitutes "copied code", and how is that accomplished? does putting your text in grey count as copying chinback's page, for example, what about using those shiny progress bars he has, what if i put them in a different order, or with different colours.... the possibilities are endless. by using the current license of "it can be copied, if you don't like it, don't post", you immedeately avoid all the quagmire of deciding exactly what is and is not copying. ZidaneT 03:55, 5 May 2008 (BST)
- whilst it sounds like a good idea, it will inevitably end in edit wars and, to be frank, childish "he stole my bold tags" arguments. the whole idea of the license is that it completely avoids this. everyone knows that anything you put on the wiki can be copied, even if that person claims it is their own work, and there is nothing you can do about it. it's the only way to ensure such arguments don't occur, a simple unilateral ruling that anything may be copied. as for attribution, the same occurs, sure, it's nice to reference the original author, but it's not required, and if you don't, nothing will happen.
