User talk:Seclife321

From Slavemaker Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

You now have admin access. WikiSysop 04:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Good, good, an edit to the front page. Feel free to reformat that if you like - I'm no wiki-expert myself, just kinda threw it together. Keep up the good work, I'll drop by every few days. If you need me sooner, WikiSysop 04:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I kinda like the idea of the changelog, but yeah, if the original creator isn't keeping up with it... meh. Nuke it if you like. WikiSysop 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I was pulling out my hair because I couldn't quite figure out how the parser functions worked. Explains a lot if they simply 'Don`t' Conanian 16:31, 07 January 2010 (UTC)

Please delete the Dealer page I added before realizing another page existed; you can find in in Special Pages:Orphans (but you knew that...). Thanks! DougTheC 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC-8)

  • I took care of it. --Conanian 15:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

From following cmacleod over at masterbloodfer, it seems as if there will be significant changes to slave maker. Keeping this in mind, I see two avenues for us to follow upon the next release: (1) we revamp everything that needs to be revamped and all data related solely to v.15 will be lost; or (2) we have new and old pages dependent upon which version they correspond to. Path 1 is the obvious answer, but 2 allows us to not loose a lot of the work that has been done thus far. I just wanted to get your and Conanian's opinions on this — and either way I call work on lesbian training. —Shynaku 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • More work, but I'd like to see us keep all the 15.x stuff. Long term, I'd love to see the Wiki setup to even show info for the original version.--Conanian 19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What I suggest we do is: Each page would be for the most up-to-date version, but there would be a link to other versions. For example: as of v16 release, we change Belldandy to match the new data, but have a bar with links to older versions at the top — in her case Original, Revised and v15 — though of course only have a page go back as far as it can — Lesbian Slave never goes further back than v15. This would allow for creation of past version information — albeit of low priority — if anyone wishes to add to those at some point. This would mean we wouldn't have to muck up our links. Also, if there are no changes from past versions, we wouldn't need to alter a single thing. I say we still get WikiSysop's opinion on this, though, before the final decision. Also, I think we should always use the last release of each version. For example: all information for our v15 pages should be for v15.8 and so on. The easiest thing I see about this is for v15: when we change a page, we simply have to copy and past it into the old version page. —Shynaku 21:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Disregard this; I have no clue what I'm talking about...

V16 namespace and changes[edit]

I can look at the namespace PHP, looks like it might be fairly simple - but it probably won't happen this weekend. Actually, a few days ago I tried to make something of a "this page may need updating for v[xxx]" header template to flag pages that may be outdated and in need of research (see [1]). But that didn't work out too well. I'd think drafts like that could also be handled on article talkpages. In short, I'm not sure the new namespace thing is strictly necessary, but since it may not be hard to set up, and since I'm not the guy doing most of the heavy lifting around here (lol), I'll have a look sometime this week. WikiSysop 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, made a namespace called (for now) "beta." WikiSysop 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to hate myself later for saying this, but I'd spend the time to copy things over from one namespace to another. I feel having namespaces is nice not only for this release, but foreseeable releases as well. I can see the project going for at least another full release, and having the groundwork set up to allow for preservation of each version's information would be nice. For example: If cmacleod follows popular opinion, I may find myself enjoying version 3 more than the foreseeable 4, which would mean I would really want to have the information on 3 preserved. Having groundwork is good for both version 4 and if we want to add things about the original, and this would be the best time to do it, as we will only ever have more pages added, making the task more tedious if found necessary at some point. All I would need to do is copy the "edit" page from one to the other, putting the namespace in front of links, right? This would be simple if put into Word and have it automatically change all instances of "[[" to "[[v2:", or am I misguided again...? If I then wanted to delete the page, I would need a higher status, or I could give a list of pages I've completed to you or Conanian for you to dispose of. —Shynaku 04:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • There are about 350 pages that would need to be moved over. Assuming three pages per minute (a low estimate), it should take me no more than two hours to do. I have a bunch of podcasts I haven't listened to yet, so I can reduce the monotony of the project with that. And, again, we will only ever get more pages as time goes on, making this even more tedious if deemed necessary later. I'd be able to dedicate the time any day of the week except Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Finally, if possible, a hold on editing from other users on the non-namespace pages would be nice, though editing is usually rather limited these days anyway. —Shynaku 12:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it's good there seems to be a fast, efficient way of making the transfer; thank you for making the script. Something I thought of with a recent edit is that all pages of a version should be describing the most recent of that edition; I mean by this that version two pages should be the Full Install v2.15.8 with the Shampoo and Yurika special updates, and, likewise, v3 should be updated upon new releases. This removes a possible slippery slope of having every edition of every version included in the wiki, and makes sure people know exactly what information they are getting. I think either now or when the namespaces are made official, an announcement should be made describing this system. —Shynaku 18:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Since it seems like the new version will be released soon, this may be as good a time as ever to run that script. —Shynaku 16:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for being an absent pain-in-the-ass, lol. Got back from my business trip and then spent 125+ hours obsessively playing Dynasty Gundam Warriors 2, lol. I seem to have it out of my system, so I'm just dropping in to say keep up the good work and so on. WikiSysop 19:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Invalid Links[edit]

The problem with invalid links that direct back to the home page is back. In particular, clicking on the Characters link under V3 in the central content of the main page is broken. Clicking on the link in the left column works. Raphe 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Only the things on the left column actually link to anything. I haven't checked everything but it is safe to say every single link redirects to the main page.
    • The problem is not that they all link to the homepage, they don't. It's the link is malformed and defaults to the home page by default. For example, when I first tried to get to this talk page the URL was "h_tp://". This is an invalid URL. The correct one is "h_tp://". - OstermanA
      • OstaermanA: I haven't made any changes to the mediawiki code, so both forms should be valid. Why do you think one is invalid and the other is not? --Seclife321 16:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The link processing seems to have been fixed so that both forms of the link work. However, there is still a problem with links like V3:Archery (skill). The problem seems to be that wiki software is just showing the new page without redirecting, but Archery (skill) redirects to V3:Skills#Archery. Without the redirect, it doesn't put the #Archery in the URL so the browser does not know to go to that section. If possible, these links should do an actual redirect of some sort. Either to V3:Skills#Archery or to V3:Archery (skill)#Archery. Note that the ?title= version of the links were handling this correctly, so it would also be possible to switch to that version of the link processing (may involve other configuration changes as well). Raphe 11:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not clear on what the issue is. The page is redirecting fine for me. Do you have &redirect=no in the url? --Seclife321 16:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Hmm...maybe it's a javascript thing. If I turn on javascript, it works (shows V3:Archery (skill)#Archery). If I'm the only one broken by it (most people probably view the site with javascript on), it may not be worth fixing. Never mind :) Raphe 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I said it was invalid because every time I had a link attempt to resolve in that form, it would redirect to the main page without exception. However, by manually changing the format of the URL to the second form, the entire wiki became accessible again. As of this writing, however, both forms function normally. - OstermanA

Upgrade status[edit]

Looked into performing an upgrade - looks REALLY complicated. Like, it seems to require shell access, which I don't actually have. I could just back everything up, reinstall as new, and restore the data from backups. But I would want to try that on a test wiki first before I try it here. I'll work on that this week. WikiSysop 17:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

GUH. Looks like I can't even run an XML backup/restore without command-line access. What a shitty design. Looked around for a script that would let me get around all that hoo-hah, no dice so far... still working on it. WikiSysop 21:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


The recently deleted user is back and entering spam again. I deleted it, but you know how effective that is. Raphe 17:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no threads on this page yet.