User talk:Azliq7/Archive3

RE: Witch & Warlock set
The 'See also' links are not necessary, because the text already contains those links.--. 11:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:AJAX
Sure you can help. I'll make you an admin so you will be able to edit the MediaWiki pages. Thanks, http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk119/spencemac724/thheadshot-1.png  Spencer   TalkundefinedGuestbookundefinedEdits  14:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Achieve box
Hi! I was looking at your Achieve box when I saw you had unlocked all emotes. Then why don't you have a skill in level 99?--. 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

logo transparency
I'll do what i can here, as you can tell the letters are derived directly from the logo (current and former and identical lettering as i only did a makeover on the runes and shadowing). Give me a bit to play with it. Note however that it might not give the exact desired effect without a white border so i'll likely leave a white outline (right about now i'm wishing i had redone the lettering, then at least i could have a good material to work the favicon over with). 23:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The transparency is a major headache with so few pixels to work with, I'm going to have to attempt to recreate the font since i cannot find it, I emailed Vimescarrot who is the one listed as the original uploader of the version with this specific lettering. It might be easier to find a person that can "name that font" in 11 characters or less (the e and i are duplicated so that's all we have to work with to guess it:} 00:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Vimes states ey is not the creator of the artwork (wikia's history of that image file must be botched due to the server move). However, I'm going to highly recommend going with the solid background (like Wikipedia's favicon is designed), you can't really see it clearly on the first example:

Image:Searchable favicons.png

but you can see it clearly on this dark version (I've overlaid the icon as it is in it's current rendition):

Image:Searchable favicons2.png

The closest examples on that version are the Creative Commons and Amazon logos and they are less than smooth due to the small size of the favicon, I'm going to have to recommend following the Wikipedia style considering how the sample lot looks. 01:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at your example screen shot regarding the tutorial, i see what was left behind in the favicon.ico that an IP edit was complaining about (the four corners). I'm attaching a clean one in .ico format that corrects the four corners issue. BTW what browser are you using? 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The favicon has become transparent which becomes rather unsightly on various colour themes, examples:

Considering how long and drawn out the favicon process has been, I'm rather ready to divorce myself from it, even the creator of the logo denied being the one to make it (via email), yet I got confirmation from another that he was. Bleh. 15:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was reading through Kytii's talk page and saw that it needed transparency. I noticed that it hasn't yet so I added it. Tell me if something wrong with it because the 2nd version seemed fine and was transparent, and yet it was replaced with the 1st version. I don't think I made a mistake but since it is an important image I just want to make sure. ≈  Dbzken (Talk) (Contribs)(Edits) ≈ 11:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tutorial image
There is still an issue because while editing is the best time to have the image in sight. Not when viewing the Exchange price. Additionally it never showed up twice on screen, ergo there was no redundancy. 14:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not show up twice, what is wrong with your perception? I am not debating that the intro text can be put there, again where do you get the idea that i'm implying that the intro text cannot be avoided? Whether or not the intro text can be circumvented is not the issue. The issue put forth by you is that it showed up two times on the same screen, and that is absolutely false. Hell it doesn't even show up a single time in the link you threw at me, here. At that rate there is no point in having the text of the intro article colour coordinated with the animated image which you seem to have some sort of love/hate relationship with.  15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And where did you perceive that i misunderstood your specification of time frame? Explain to me the logic in your reasoning:
 * How-to-edit image should show up when a user is merely viewing.
 * How-to-edit image should not be available when actually editing.
 * Please do let me know how this is logicial? 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not appear while editing. 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is one case where it would show up, but it requires:
 * The user be logged in.
 * The user has changed their editing preferences to "Show preview on first edit" which is not the default setting.
 * Therefore the majority of editors will likely not see it, my guess is you have it turned on, thus why you saw it twice. My recommendation, is to pull it from the template and put it in the edit intro, as i think more will likely see that as more people are likely going through the "edit" links when viewing either the GEMW or the article regarding the item they are doing the price update for. Unfortunately their is simply no way to guarantee it will be show.  BTW there is no javascript involved with the edit intro showing up, it's simply a matter of what link is taken there as to whether or not it gets there or not. In the majority of cases most editors will likely see the editintro text. Additionally the majority of editors will likely not see the preview on first edit. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable of the inner wiki workings could find a way to ensure that the editintro is always displayed when editing the Exhange: namespace, at which point the image could without doubt be shown when editing.  16:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Two examples logged in with default prefs and not logged in: Image:Editing_example_1.png|not logged in Image:Editing_example_2.png|logged in default prefs 16:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true in both cases I directly cut and paste the edit without the intro, if i were to have navigated there the normal ways you would see the following examples:

Image:Editing_example_3.png|not logged in Image:Editing_example_4.png|logged in default prefs 17:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully examples 3 and 4 more clearly illustrate what the majority will see. As such I'm going to reiterate that moving the image to the editintro will actually cause it to be seen by more users than by leaving it in the exchange template. As it is now most people will see it when viewing an EchangeItem but will not see it when editing. 17:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete them. There has to be a way in the code to require the editintro to show. but it won't be in the Javascript side of things since that code only executes on the client side of the browser. Is there any PHP code that can be twiddled? My understanding is that is where the majority of the wiki handling happens, as such we would only need to put in a check to see if an edit page was requested in the Exchange: namespace and then tack that on front.  17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So the solution is? 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Barbarians
Hey, thanks for the help. You did a great job reorganizing! --Orbie 04:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New Favicon
Did you discuss with other users about the new favicon.ico? Because I personally think the old one was better. immibis 06:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

removing duplication and ensuring data delivery
Now, the big question is who is the most experienced at the low level wiki stuff. It occurred to me that what needs to be done might actually be possible in javascript, however that means the user has to have javascript enabled (granted most do). The only 100% sure fire way to make sure it's shown once and only once is on the server side of things though. What resources would you suggest I start looking into? 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Javascript
I guess it's pretty apparent i'm more comfortable in PHP, likely because it's syntax is very similar to what i spent most of my career coding in. Now I'll just have to take a peek to see what was done. BTW It occurred to me that some of the custom editing buttons are hooked into that Javascript code. I was thinking that if that is the case, then would it be possible to check for whether that image even has a single instance and if not do a page refresh (or redirect or whatever it's called) to the same edit link with the editintro text in place, that would actually ensure that anyone with javascript active would actually get the tutorial, no? of course it would have to be done on page load. 12:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

^_^
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/773/reaperho6.gif

Hehe :P -- 16:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You added the description "You might be a king or a little street sweeper, but sooner or later you dance with the reaper..." to the wiki front page in the news article. I thought you wrote it at first but it was actually copied from the RS website. I guess their web team are fans of Bill & Ted. -- 16:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. 16:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Moving pages
I'm aware of checking 'what links here', and have been negligent in this as of late. which instance of my negligence brought this to your attention? 15:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * july 20th, got it 16:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

cat
i noticed that 2 hours ago. anything else i'm doing less than perfect at the moment? 02:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * my bad i meant 1.5 hours ago, and if you need to go ahead and fire me for not fixing it instantly. Besides does it really hurt to have something double noted when it's behind the scenes? Does it affect the wiki software? does it cause mass epidemics? or is it just a quirk of yours, a pet peeve, or just something you want to pester others about? maybe it's a case of "not invented here"? 02:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not everything does, but there's something about the way you say it. maybe we'll figure that out over time  02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * um, i'm rather new myself, but i'll point out tips. I know a friend of mine some time ago suggested some sort of book she had read about different personality types and interacting/communicating effectively with the different types, it wasn't a psychology book per se however. That sort of thing would be excellent for dealing with the many different personality types, I couldn't tell you what i am, but i do get touchy sometimes, I think there's a quote on Christine's user page that seems rather apt at times. 03:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Infobox
I'm terribly sorry. 03:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Classy fix. 20:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)