RuneScape talk:User of the Month

Alright, I have a question. When it means never offended, does it mean: A. You have not been banned, muted, etc. on RS. B. You have never gotten a black mark on RS. C. You have never offended anyone on RS or RSW. D. You have never banned, blocked, or etc. (except for those blocked by Shadowdancer, they are excluded) on RSW.

Someone tell me! ДҖ-- Huanghe63 talk 03:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems difficult to determine if there has been some in-game formal action against a wiki author. Hence, my assumption is that only offenses on the RSW are being considered. Nice initiative btw. --Miw 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Offended means never have broken any of our CVU rules and been banned for it. --Whiplash 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that's necesary... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Criteria
I don't have a problem with the idea of a featured user, but I do have a problem with the criteria:


 * This user must never have offended before.
 * Why? If he's not a good enough editor to be featured, he won't be featured. If he is, then he's obviously either never offended, or fully repentant.


 * This user must have been here for over 1 month.
 * Why? If one user writes quest guides for every quest remaining, doubles our item databse, and categorises every uncategorised image and article, as well as coming up with the perfect image to sort out our logo debate, in three days (It's possible), and we nominate the next one the day after, why can he not be eligible?


 * You must not nominate anyone who has been already given the spotlight.
 * No problem with that.


 * The user should have at least 750 edits.
 * See two up from here....Number of edits does not equal quality of content. And entire quest guide could be written in one edit, or multiple edits; going by that, more edits suggests less suitable for featured user. Number of edits is an extremely bad way of representing a user's qualities.


 * You must notify the user you have nominated them as they may wish to withdraw.
 * Sounds good to me.

Ok, that's me done. Discussion? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

=O I see your point Vimes this is still new so do any changes you wish :P. --Whiplash 16:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps instead of putting no offences, we can use no Ip addresses as we don't know if they're shared and may vandalise. --Whiplash 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll leave off editing for tonight, I'll do it tomorrow, after some more discussion has happened. Or has not happened. Either way...lol. And I agree...Nominated users must be registered. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * K, duly changed. By the way, I think we should archive the old nomination pages every month; that way we can re-nominate someone (who wasn't featured before, obviously, lol) without having two entries for them on the same page :) JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  17:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Requirements to vote?
Well, I'm hoping it doesn't come to this, but should we have a certain number of days for an editor to be around to prevent Sock puppetry? I don't think it would be long... 2-5 days? Then again, they do have an entire month to vote, so it may not have much of an effect other than deter lazy/impatient sock puppeteers... 08:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

glad to see you took up my idea, 10:33 5 March 2007 (UTC) RuneScape:Requested Featured Articles/Vimescarrot
 * Feedback? Perdy pwease? 07:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about no IP addresses. The User needs to have made a few contributions, whether on the forums or the pages themselves, doesn't matter, but they're at least doing something.  On for at least a week?  Then they might have some time to actually see someone well enough to vote for them.  Dunno.  19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The voter should be a registered user, not a nameless number. Dtm142 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww..
Man...too bad i'm not active anymore :'( 05:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow down!
Am I the only one that's noticed that the latter two of the Featured Users have recieved Featured User status halfway through the month? The Featured User page should run more along the lines of the Requested Featured Articles page. I mean, there's no hurry to recieve so why the rush? Chaoticar 09:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's first to five votes. It's not like Requested Featured Article (which waits until the end of the month, I think). Sorry, a little late. 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gangsterls
Why is his signature (or part of it, at least) at the top right hand corner of the page? I can't seem to find the code for it, but it definitely seems it's there for me. 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yleron... Gangsterls is a he, not a she. 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Corrected, but that still leaves my question. I've attached a screenshot, just in case you don't know what I'm talking about: 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'll look into it. He uses template sig? Does he subst it? If I can't find what's wrong, we'll get someone better at HTML. 15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it. 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup - I can no longer see it 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A little early?
isnt it a little early to decide who is Uotm? I mean, its only the 5th and we have already decided on what next months UOTM is? doesn't anyone find that a little odd? Tesfan 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if the voting is complete then it's finished. I mean, we can't start it over so we'll have to wait until July to vote for August. 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The voting's not complete. Not even half of the wikians here have voted! 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did find it a little odd... even Katshuma thought that it was a little rushed. =/ 03:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)