HRWiki talk:Sysops

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 00:08, 24 January 2007

Sysop selection

Are sysops just selected randomly or something? I've always been curious about how sysops got be sysops in the first place. --—↑_{Darklinkskywalker}|^{Talk_|i did this stuff_}↓ 22:27, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

See this discussion, as well as this note by JoeyDay. — It's dot com 22:39, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I just learned something new! Apparently I get a "You have a new message" signal when this page is updated. I was very confused when I saw that my personal talk page was unchanged... Homestar Coder 22:54, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Really? Maybe I'll just have to try this out myself... And does it aleart all the sysops, or just the first one to read it? Well we'll find out now. 70.70.212.72 11:39, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC) (Thunderbird btw, signed out to make the test less flawed)

Hmmm... Seems like it didn't alert me at all... Perhaps it somehow knew I left the message. Anybody else get a mail alert? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 11:41, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It's not alerting me at all, no matter who edits this page. Perhaps a coincidence? --Jay (Gobble) 18:23, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of checking Homestar Coder's talk history, and on July 19, her page was vandalized and promptly reverted by BazookaJoe. There were new messages, but they were deleted, so the bar showed up but no change was visible. Username-talk 18:28, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nope, that wasn't it, because I had seen BazookaJoe's detrolling and cleared that message earlier in the day. Homestar Coder 18:54, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It's not alerting me any more either. I'm not sure what happened that one day then, because there were not changes in my talk page history. Homestar Coder 18:26, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Site Notice error?

You forgot to put that message (Welcome to 205.134.229.228!) on every page. Please do so.

It does appear of every page. Please hard refresh your browser. -- Tom 20:26, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Unknown Category Appearance

At the Fanstuff, "User:Ekul/Email/72" is appearing in the "FotW Winner" category, and it shouldn't, and nobody can figure out why. Is it a database error or something? -- Super Sam 16:43, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It's because {{Ekul/Email}} is on the 72 page. To solve the problem, you may have to replace the template with the code from the Email page (minus the category, of course). — It's dot com 16:55, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

But there's no category on the template. -- Super Sam 16:57, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you just needed a dummy edit, which It's dot com has taken care of. -- Tom 17:01, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the link to the category must have been on there at some point, and has since been removed. I can't seem to recreate the problem. The category page looks fine now. — It's dot com 17:09, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The link to the category was added at one point, and it made the emails #72 and #73 appear on the category. When it was removed, link #73 disappeared, but that one stayed. - Joshua

Alrighty. All is well. -- Super Sam 06:15, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hey, I accidentally uploaded an image that I meant to upload on to the Fanstuff Wiki. Do you mind deleting it for me? Here's the link. File:Ultimate Biztar.PNG--~~Ampi~~^meowarchives 00:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Note that adding the {{delete}} tag probably would have been enough of a notice, but thanks for the note here anyway. -- Tom 03:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you post a link to the previous Admin voting?

You know, the one back in April where Thunderbird and the other new sysops got elected? I can't seem to find a link to that archive anywhere. Thanks ahead of time. - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

After a little bit of search box bribing, (I hate that thing) I've found the link. For future reference, it's here. - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Ha, I like the sound of that. "Thunderbird and the others". :) ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh. :P - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

For anyone

PLEASE make me a sysop!!! I'll be really good and do whatever I have to do to be good. I'll do ANYTHING to be a sysop! TheThingé 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Becoming a sysop or an administrator happens the same way almost anywhere you go on the internet. Make outstanding edits, and earn people's respect and trust (This. Takes. Time.). Another thing: asking to be made a sysop is a very good way to ruin your chances. —BazookaJoe 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

O' OK sorry. TheThingé 20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename to HRWiki:Sysops

I see that there already is a redirect with this title, but 1) largely because of the new page HRWiki:Bureaucrats, and 2) because Administrator is not entirely synonymous with Sysop, I suggest that we rename this page HRWiki:Sysops. Do not be alarmed; the term 'Administrator' will be written into this article in such a way that it will be swiftly and adequately explained. It will require a little work, but how about we do this to make the distinction and relation between Admin / Sysop / Bureaucrat more clear? —BazookaJoe 04:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the silence as, "Do it, BzJ. We'd love to see you try and prove your awesomeness." —BazookaJoe 06:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some input from others. -- Tom 06:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, I would too, else I wouldn't have posted here. ;) —BazookaJoe 06:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, what is the distinction bertween "Administrator" and "Sysop"? My guess is that "Administrators" is the blanket term for the set of people who perform administrative duties, of which sysops, bureaucrats, etc, are subsets. Is that right? Trey56 06:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I use the terms, yes, that's right. —BazookaJoe 06:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I think the move makes sense. Trey56 06:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I use the term "admins" to mean all the sysops and bureaucrats and such, but sometimes I use it to mean "as opposed to just a sysop", to mean the people who are bureaucrats here and HRFWiki, admins on the forum, dev access to the server... the people who administrate the whole site. The forum is kinda where the confusion comes from, for me... there the lower level of administration is the "Moderator" and the higher is the "Administrator"... on the wiki the lower level is the "Sysop" and the higher is the "Bureaucrat", and both collectively are "Administrators"... --phlip ^T_C 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always used "Administrator" to mean those six people who have the developer role. These are also the only bureaucrats, the only forum administrators, the only people who can access the support[at]hrwiki[dot]org mailbox, the only people with direct access to the server control panel, and the only people who are listed in Template:adminteam. I'm a huge advocate of the wiki way, of course, so I'm not opposed to redefining the term if the community has been using it differently than the way I've always used it. — Joey (talk·edits) 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Except for some new and sometimes uninformed people who look for the site's admins, almost everyone use the term "sysop" to refer to the known group of people. I'm for the move. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the term "administrator" is indeed a bit confusing, I think it would be better to call this page HRWiki:Sysops. As the MediaWiki default term is "administrator", I think we should definitely keep a redirect here. The term administrator will always be a bit ambiguous here: while on the one hand, it can have the limited definition Joey mentions, the words "administrator" and "sysop" are used synonymously on many other wikis, includng 'Kipedia, and therefore many will understand them as synonymous. Heimstern Läufer 20:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, the term administrator as defined by the MediaWiki peoples is different from the way I've traditionally defined it, and this is precisely where the confusion arises (well, maybe nobody's confused but me). My use of the term pre-dates our use of MediaWiki and goes back to when we were using 'Tavi. Under MediaWiki, the term developer or bureaucrat should be used instead, and administrator is more appropriately applied to people in all three of these groups. At any rate, I agree about renaming the page in question HRWiki:Sysops. — Joey (talk·edits) 20:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I Know You've Probably Heard This A Lot...

...but I need to know. Have I been good enough to qualify for the next sysop nominations (whenever they will be)? I have seen the sysop criteria page that anyone who replies to this is bound to link me to, and I'm just not sure if I've taken care of all that. I know a lot about the software, I've been here for about a year and a half, I've never trolled, I've worked on a big project (the Songs catagory), and I'm here almost every day. Now don't take this the wrong way, I'm not asking to become a sysop, just wondering if I've got the stuff for it. Also, I never have the opportunity to make transcripts because other people get it way too fast. Thanks in advance, -Brightstar Shiner 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop but I'll add my 2 cents. I think you'd make a great sysop. Your contributions are amazing. Plus, you gave me cupcakes once, remember? TheYellowDart—(t/c)

Aww...thanks, Yellowdart! But really, I need a sysop to reply to me. But I do remember when I gave you cupcakes. That was fun. -Brightstar Shiner 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm...could someone please pay attention to this? It's bugging me not to get an answer,so not to be rude or impatient or anything but... -Brightstar Shiner 00:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I notified Loafing for you. But seriously, it is unnecessary of you to post that above message. Just wait it out. Someone will reply. Ah, patience. TheYellowDart—(t/c)

R-right. I'm impatient today. Sorry. -Brightstar Shiner 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)