Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive6

Battlestar Galactica References

In order to improve them (I'm mostly referring to the References to), I was thinking we could insert the time in which the reference occurs (for instance: I had to wait toward the very end of a Family Guy episode for the BSG reference). It would help out to know where (and when) to watch for the references. Any thoughts? DrWho42 09:51, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

The more info the better, I say. So go for it. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 09:59, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Server time

Since yesterday, RC has been reporting incorrect times differing 17 minutes from the actual time. Can this be fixed? --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 07:46, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

I've did a timesync for the server with the atomic clock. It should be reporting the correct time now. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 22:53, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Was planning on this :) Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 07:23, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Works for me now. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 09:58, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Citation for Richard Hatch comments

The corresponding website listed along the Dynamite Dispatches [ http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/16408155.htm ] in my Battlestar Galactica: Cylon Apocalypse 1 seems nonexistent. Here is what the defunct article supposedly said:

HATCH HAPPY ABOUT "ZAREK"

Richard Hatch, who plays revolutionary Tom Zarek on "Battlestar Galactica," says he has not yet read the "Battlestar Galactica: Zarek" miniseries from Dynamite, but plans to. "I'm looking forward to learning more about my history and backstory," Hatch said. "I'm amazed that they decided to do a story on my character and I'm truly humbled and appreciative."

Anyone in the know about this? DrWho42 11:48, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I suspect that it is located in philly.com's archives, which you need a not-so-free account with their website to access. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 12:20, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Username policy template update

After a minor issue involving one user's page, I've revised the {{username}} policy template so that it serves two roles. If admins encounter a username that's inappropriate:

Add {{username}} to the top of the user's home account page.
Unless the remaining content of the user's page is in violation of other policies, do NOT make any further changes to the user's home page.
Add a new topic to the user's talk page explaining the issue and give them an appropriate time to request a change per the username policy, or note the account is banned if a significant violation.

The new template works for either scenario without having to add any other items to a user page. --Spencerian 11:55, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

BS Wiki pimped at SyFyPortal

Not sure if this is the right place to put it, but we got mentioned and linked to in an article over there, about the apparent appearance of the Demetrius in Season 4. Also contains an interesting spoiler about the Centurions, btw. --Serenity 12:39, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, Michael Hinman (operator of SyFy Portal) e-mailed me just yesterday to let me know. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 13:18, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

User:Sssjhnmh is up to no good

Sssjhnmh recently edited the page Angela. He left hundreds of the same links to an very inappropriate url. He should be banned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veepz (talk • contribs).

Nevermind, Catrope took care of it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veepz (talk • contribs).

Done. Thanks for the heads-up! :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 15:11, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, sorry I forgot about the sig, guess I was in a rush. Veepz 15:14, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

No worries. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 15:15, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I think we're lucky that we get so few people like this. --BklynBruzer 16:14, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Indeed. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 16:21, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

It's interesting to note it got through the CAPTCA tho. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:45, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

What is the CAPTCA?Veepz 17:52, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

See: Captcha. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 17:55, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

It was probably an actual person. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 17:55, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Most likely, but the Cylons may be onto us. --Steelviper 20:45, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

That's some bad news. --BklynBruzer 22:07, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

It's nothing new, sadly, and much expected (though unwanted). It's like an arms race: one side outdoing the other, vice versa, and rinse & repeat. Most of the captcha crackers seem to be of the human variety, who are paid off by people in the form of free pornography and the like. (Some of the weaker captchas are easier to crack, because they have a standard font they use, and they do the manipulations rigidly.) Otherwise, if it can be implemented, it can be circumvented. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 22:19, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

The good ol' "One side gets a better gun, the other gets better armor," eh? --BklynBruzer 22:26, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

"if it can be implemented, it can be circumvented." - the bottom line. There will always be people who would rather disrupt and destroy, rather than improve and create. Any idiot can destroy. JubalHarshaw 09:51, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Its a good analogy for evolution in animals. Eagle gets wings that allow it to fly faster, rabbit gets better eyes to see him coming. If it wasn't for the spammers we wouldnt have as strong a CAPTCHA as we do. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 11:55, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

And yet, if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't need it at all. --BklynBruzer 11:57, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

But its not just anti spam measures that benefit. Technologies developed are used for other industries and drive forward into new ideas and better stuff, things like OCR readers :P --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 12:17, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

What, you expect me to look at the long-term stuff/effects? --BklynBruzer 12:19, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

*fluffles* :D --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 12:27, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Clock off again

The server clock seems to be seven minutes off. Do you have ntpd installed? It's a daemon that automatically keeps the clock in sync with time servers all over the world. Since the clock has fallen behind for the second time in a relatively short while, it might be useful. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 15:08, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

The clock is still wrong, the difference has now increased to twelve minutes. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 09:30, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm working on it now. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 16:10, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Ok, the sync should be done. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 16:38, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Works for me now. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 16:39, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Cool. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 16:40, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Speed or lack thereof

Is it just me, or has the wiki been running much slower the last few days? Is this because we've suddenly got more traffic, or what else is the reason? --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 06:54, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

I haven't really noticed a slow-down, but I can't load the pages sometimes. --Serenity 07:19, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

No idea. My laptop seems slow on all websites. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 07:36, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Well the slowdown I'm experiencing is not extreme (like after Maelstrom, when it took 10 minutes just to load Recent Changes), but noticable. Loading uncached pages takes 5 to 10 seconds, which is longer than usual. But I guess we're only really going to be put to the test when Razor has aired. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 07:45, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

I already suggested to lock down some pages like Razor and Pegasus (maybe Helena Cain and Gina too?), like we do before airing episodes to avoid edit conflicts and unnecessary strain. But we'll still be hammered. --Serenity 07:48, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

I am running the interwiki bot on DE right now. It's making tons of changes on the EN wiki right now. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 07:48, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

I noticed. However, my slowdown started before the bot did... Ah well, I just hope we'll be able to survive the S4 post-airing hypes. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 07:57, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

I havnt noticed any significant slowdowns and the pages people have posted as examples have loaded instantly for me. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 09:51, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Same here. --BklynBruzer 10:55, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Might be something to do with the internet. Otherwise, I've been able to get the site fine. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 14:04, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

The Colonial Fleet as a "Friend"

I was very impressed with the costuming and carousing group known as "The Colonial Fleet" at DragonCon 2007. Formed after their meeting last year, TCF was one of the hits of DragonCon, and their Saturday party and parade presence was legendary.

TCF specializes in two things: Parties and costumes. Originally gathering needed data for their first costumes from the wiki and other sources last year, TCF's resources today now dwarf our meager offerings and would be a nice cross-reference for costuming enthusiasts (we could also put links to TCF on relevant uniform articles in the "See Also"s).

I'd love to add the TCF seal and link as a Friend on our Main Page. (Their logo is awesome: It uses the Lest We Forget figure.) It would link to their discussion board. Any comments? I know Shane can get this up in a heartbeat. --Spencerian 00:27, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I have no objection. Actually, could we use some of their own research over here to fill our Uniforms (RDM) page? That would definitely bring that page up to snuff. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 00:50, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I went ahead and added them (heck, senior chiefs ought to have some benefit of the doubt on such things, and two of them agree). I made a quick little png of their logo. I think that's my first png, ever. --Steelviper 00:55, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Special:Editcount broken

I think this was already brought up some time ago, but Special:Editcount is completely broken. First, the colors are messed up, so you have to highlight the thing to see anything. Seems to be white text on a white background. Second, the maths is also wrong. I have about 6,800 edits of which about 4,700 are in (Main). And that's supposed to be 0.06%. What the frak? --Serenity 11:25, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

The percentages are broken for me too. Maybe Joe or Shane should update the Editcount extension? --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 11:34, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Looking at the revision log, I think I know what's causing the bug:

Total  	2,870  	100%
(Main)  	1,096  	0.03%

The 1096 is first formatted to 1,096, then divided by 2870: (1.096/2870)*100 = 0.038. This was fixed some time ago, so an upgrade should fix it. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 11:38, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Catrope nailed it. It's a problem we run into every time we take an update. It's a pretty easy fix. --Steelviper 11:47, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

I have fixed this 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times before so I just ignore it cause I submited a patch along time ago and no one took care of it. :-P Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:28, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Maybe no one there cares about their edit/post counts :) Though Catrope said they fixed it by now... --Serenity 13:00, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Yep, you gotta upgrade your version of Editcount through the link I posted above. Just download each of the files in that folder. Unlike Steelviper thought, however, this was not caused by the 1.10 --> 1.11 update: the problem isn't in the MediaWiki core code, but in the Editcount extension, which hasn't been upgraded for some time. Shane, Joe, if you worry about running possibly unstable SVN code, there's a stable version of Editcount guaranteed to work with 1.11.10 here. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 13:48, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

TOS badges appear at bottom only

Happens with Firefox but not IE. OTW 13:37, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

On which skin? Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:39, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Confirmed on Firefox 2.0.0.7 on Windows, using bsgbook. The TOS badge appears at the bottom of the text, not on top of the RDM badge, where it used to be. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 13:41, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

I think you need to do a hard refresh of your cache. I have moved the TOS badge up using the skin. Works fine here. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:43, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Good idea, how could I not have though of that? Fixes it for me, anyway. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 13:47, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Years of experience. :) Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:57, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Suggestion for new interwiki binding

Could a Bureaucrat/Senior Chief please map m-w: to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/$1 ? --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 08:09, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Done. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 13:53, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Special:Editcount broken

I think this was already brought up some time ago, but Special:Editcount is completely broken. First, the colors are messed up, so you have to highlight the thing to see anything. Seems to be white text on a white background. Second, the maths is also wrong. I have about 6,800 edits of which about 4,700 are in (Main). And that's supposed to be 0.06%. What the frak? --Serenity 11:25, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

The percentages are broken for me too. Maybe Joe or Shane should update the Editcount extension? --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 11:34, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Looking at the revision log, I think I know what's causing the bug:

Total  	2,870  	100%
(Main)  	1,096  	0.03%

The 1096 is first formatted to 1,096, then divided by 2870: (1.096/2870)*100 = 0.038. This was fixed some time ago, so an upgrade should fix it. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 11:38, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Catrope nailed it. It's a problem we run into every time we take an update. It's a pretty easy fix. --Steelviper 11:47, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

I have fixed this 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times before so I just ignore it cause I submited a patch along time ago and no one took care of it. :-P Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:28, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Maybe no one there cares about their edit/post counts :) Though Catrope said they fixed it by now... --Serenity 13:00, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Yep, you gotta upgrade your version of Editcount through the link I posted above. Just download each of the files in that folder. Unlike Steelviper thought, however, this was not caused by the 1.10 --> 1.11 update: the problem isn't in the MediaWiki core code, but in the Editcount extension, which hasn't been upgraded for some time. Shane, Joe, if you worry about running possibly unstable SVN code, there's a stable version of Editcount guaranteed to work with 1.11.10 here. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 13:48, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Could this be fixed? Could someone at the very least upgrade the Editcount extension through the link I posted above? --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 08:37, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Uploaded it now. It works, as far as I can tell. The only thing to do is to fix the table in CSS... which Shane should do since he's working on the skins anyway. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 13:54, 28 September 2007 (CDT)