User talk:Ryangibsonstewart/Archive 4

WARNING: User talk:Ryangibsonstewart/Archive 4 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to User talk:Ryangibsonstewart.

Heroes Wiki character list

:P

What do you think of a Heroeswiki-wide character list?

Keep it a fan creations thing, let everyone add their own character and description, and maybe even write our own stories around it?

I'll start it, I'll note to limit the amount of characters one makes to keep it shorter.

Maybe one or two per heroeswiki contributor.

It could be fun :)

Maybe call it, The Heroes Wiki Heroes? :P --Riddler 22:22, 1 March 2007 (EST)

• I'm assuming you're referring to the character list you have on your user page, or the one created by ZachsMind? Those are great -- very entertaining! I think they're better off on user pages, since they're just fun and not based on anything real, but that's just my opinion. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2007 (EST)
  • --Well it WAS based on that... but this one was more of a group thing, everyone contributes something, it'd be a fan creation like Incidental Heroes... even if it's not a series of videos.

    Unless you specifically say no, do you mind if I make it? Anyone can add their own bits and peices at will. --Riddler 23:13, 1 March 2007 (EST)

    • Well, I'm not exactly for it as its own page. Incidental Heroes is a factual article reporting on a series of web videos. Since this would be your own creation, it's not really factual. Now, I might be a sysop here, but I'm not the only one, and I'm not the only person in the community. If you make the page, I won't delete it, but that doesn't mean I endorse it. It's a very fun idea, but I just think it's better off on user pages. But if there's a strong mandate for it from the community, I won't stand in anyone's way. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2007 (EST)
    • I'm not sure Heroes Wiki would be the best place for stories on these characters. I think it would be more appropriate if the stories were elsewhere and the info here would just be a reference article about this particular collection of fan fiction. I think this is similar to what Ryan was saying. (Admin 00:52, 2 March 2007 (EST))
      • You took the words right out of my mouth fingertips. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2007 (EST)
• Not to sound like an overly sensitive 'mo, but can we change this section title? It bugs me looking at it on RC, and if it makes me uncomfortable, I'll guarantee others will take much more offense at it.--Hardvice (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2007 (EST)
  • I hadn't even noticed it, to be perfectly honest. Thanks for changing it. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Not Sure about this...

Heroes 360 revealed this: List of powers. It is suppoused to be by mohinder... so we might wanna update ours against his. Also, my girl thinks I am obsessed with the show, so the few edits I did tonight are my final ones. Thanks for keeping an awesome wiki going! Anomy 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

• My wife thinks I'm obsessed too ... and she's right.

  Thanks for the list -- it looks good. It seems like most of the powers are the same or similar to ours. A few standouts: technokinesis, healing and spontaneous regeneration (which should probably be a redirect but not a name change, since the name came from the Genesis files), super strength, mechanical intuition (which we considered, in some form or another, at one time, but decided to the power was more than just "mechanical" -- I like our name better, and I've noticed a lot of other sites using it, too), empathy (which redirects, and there was a huge discussion about that after The Fix, and I like the "mimicry" part of our title). — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2007 (EST)

  • I noticed intuitive aptitude at the bottom. Go us. I also noticed some missing powers (persuasion, eidetic memory, for instance) and a few spelling mistakes (it's->its). I wonder how much this list (though a good read) can be trusted. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)
    • I really wish their site wasn't a wiki. It seems odd to be saying so on a Wiki, but it makes all of the info suspect as far as we're concerned.--Hardvice (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)
      • Yeah, wikis are all a bunch of bunk, full of false information. oh wait... — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)
      • I agree, Hardvice. I would have been more excited had it not been a wiki since it would have felt a little more trustworthy. (Admin 00:45, 7 March 2007 (EST))
        • Incidentally it's hosted on the same server as nbc.com. (Admin 00:48, 7 March 2007 (EST))
          • ...which actually makes me trust the fans more than NBC! :) ... The fact that they list intuitive aptitude kinda cracks me up, considering our community totally made up that name (see here). It's quite flattering, but shouldn't be confused with canon. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2007 (EST)
            • If you check out the edits on the wiki a lof of them really are poor quality. I definitely wouldn't trust the info there. (Admin 00:56, 7 March 2007 (EST))
              • As far as I can tell it is all made by fans (just go through the edits), so it is not canon. -Lөvөl 16:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Characterportalnavbartemplatething

• See what I did? That should make it a little bit easier, no?--Hardvice (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)
  • Thanks for the correction -- I was trying to figure out what you did, and I was at such a loss ... Yes, the Template:PortalCharNav changes you made make it sooooo much easier to preview. Very nice work! Will you do the same thing for Template:GuestCastPortalNav? I gotta run. Later, mater! — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Screencaps

How do I get screencaps? I'm trying to get a picture of the tuning fork. Heroe 23:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks!

Just thought it would look kinda clean, but since its not really relevant i don't really mind. Thanks Mattles07 23:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Infobox help

Some areas of the character infobox won't show up. Why is this? Heroe 11:32, 10 March 2007 (EST)

• You had an extra exclamation point in the comment of the field before portrayer (<!-- Comment !--> instead of <!-- Comment -->). That makes it think the comment is still open, and ignores everything until it finds a proper close-comment tag (which is in the next line of the template itself).--Hardvice (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)
  • You took the words right out of my mouth. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Lemmiwinks

Hey, this is Citizen! Am I talking to you the right way? Is this how one sends messages? About the Lemmiwinks thing, do you have MSN? It would be easier to talk there. -User:Citizen

template help

Hi. I'm creating a new template. How do you get those little square things? Heroe 22:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

• Hi again. My first attempt at a template has gone horribly wrong will you please fix it? Heroe 23:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Heh, it looks, um, interesting. :) I'll work on it in a little bit. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
    • What did I do wrong? Heroe 23:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
      • I'm not sure which template you were using as a basis, but you had your tables set at 70% instead of 100%. Another thing was you forgot your square brackets around the edit link. It's a small difference, but it makes all that funny code appear. Finally, you were also mixing up Fan-creation with Fan_creation. Since there is no template called "Fan-creation", it was throwing stuff off. It gets tricky when you name a template with a space in it--not impossible, just tricky. Personally, I would have called it "Fannav" or "Fancreations" to distinguish it a bit from Template:Fancreation, but that's just me. Good job on the basics though! — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
        • I was using the "Recurring themes" template as a basis. The reason I changed it to 70% is that I thought it would casue the table to be thinner. Heroe 23:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
          • It did, but it wasn't consistently 70%. However, that was a minor mistake, since all it really did was make it a little smaller. Just be aware, though, all the other navbars are at 100% so they go all the way across the user's screen. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Time Travel (disambig)

I want to turn time travel from aredirect to a disambig page. Is it alright if I do that? Heroe 21:48, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

• There are so many links to time travel, all having to do with space-time manipulation. Also, the primary search for that term really should go to S-TM. I would make an article called time travel (disambig), and then have a "See Also" section at the bottom of S-TM. (That's kind of how Genesis, Hiro, and some articles are done, when the main link should go to a specific article, not to a disambig.) Let me know if you need help. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Question

What are you and Cuardin referring to on the Claire Bennet talk page? Benoni

• I'm assuming you mean the recent posts by Heroe and me? Well, NBC has a history of, um, not exactly having their facts correct. Specifically, I was referring to a picture that NBC had in a gallery a while ago--it was of Leonard Roberts, which was labeled "The Haitian". Also, before Godsend aired, there was a looong promo (like 10 minutes) that incorrectly listed D.L.'s power as "shape-shifting". I believe the video is still there, if you want to check it out. The mis-captioned picture was fixed. But NBC continues to ... entertain us. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I was actually referring to this..."This would be fatal for most humans, even other instant self-healers or otherwise durable characters." i found this phrase in the "Powers" section. i don't get what it's real purpose is and what it refers to. No kidding getting your neck twisted off can be fatal, and who are these "instant self-healers or otherwise durable characters" that are refered to?" Cuardin 12:14, 14 January 2007 (EST) "Agree. Weird. I guess it's referring to characters from other comic books? I dunno. Shouldn't be there, in any case." - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2007 (EST)
    • Wow, a comment back from January 14. Hmm, I can't quite recall exactly what we were referencing, to be honest. I do remember the conversation, though. The line that Cuardin quoted was written under the Powers section of Claire's page, and in context read, "She suffered an injury where her neck was broken and turned around 180 degrees. This would be fatal for most humans, even other instant self-healers or otherwise durable characters.". I think the line struck Cuardin odd, as well it should. There's no reason to compare Claire to other characters from comic books, so I removed it. Hope that clears things up a bit. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Yes it did thank you very much. hope i didn't bug ya. Benoni 22:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
        • No, you didn't bug me at all. It was kinda fun to dig up some old stuff from January. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
          • Are you an Admin? Or a web head? Not like a certain super hero but like internet savvy?. Benoni
            • Yes, I'm a Sysop here. I'm not the most internet savvy person there is, but I know my way around. I'm here to help. I'm also on the site quite frequently, so if you ever have a question, I should be able to get back to you within a few hours. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
              • What exactly is a Sysop? Just an Admin of something specific? Benoni 21:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
                • A sysop is a "system operator". Yes, it's an admin. It means I can basically delete pages, block users, and revert multiple edits from the same user at once. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
                  • Does one get to be an admin cuz they were there when this wiki was started? Or is it like a badge of honour? Also what is a bot edit? Benoni23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
                    • Okay, I'm not Ryan, but I still know the answers to these questions. Yes, being an Admin is a badge of honor. I remember when Ryan wasn't a Sysop. A bot edit is an edit made by the server, not a user. Heroe(talk) 00:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
                    • Not so much a "badge of honor" as a few more available tools and a little more work. Other than that, we're basically just contributors like everybody else. Now, if we had a vandalism problem, it would be a bigger deal, but as it is, we basically just answer questions and delete unneeded pages.--Hardvice (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
                      • On what basis would the server make an edit? Benoni 01:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
                        • Bots are basically scripts that can be run to do things like scan articles and update ages based on dates, and stuff like that. AFAIK we aren't currently running any bots, but that's the easiest way to think of them: batch jobs that will make repetitive edits to a bunch of articles based on particular criteria.--Hardvice (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
                          • What would I have to do to be a SYSOP? Just wondering. Is it possible to put a character box in the middle or left of the page? Benoni 02:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
                            • Good question. There's not really anything you "do" to become a sysop. When the need arrives for a new administrator, the admins will discuss it and User:Admin (who is the only bureaucrat, and the only one who can change user status) will give somebody that status. You can see more of User:Admin's comments about becoming an sysop here.

                              As for the character box, I believe it's hardwired to float right. I personally don't know how to override that, or even if it's possible. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

                              • There's no way to change it in the template as it exists now; it's possible to add a variable for it to the template, but it would require stylesheet changes as well (infobox is a class set up in the wiki-wide CSS), and I can't think why we'd need it. Left-floated elements (particularly large ones like sidebars) muck up the section headings and layout, and centered elements create a ton of whitespace on either side.--Hardvice (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
                                • Right, no reason for it, except for user pages. Not worth the trouble, if you ask me. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Gallery Question

Hey I was wondering how can I know if I should or not create a gallery in the San Antonio page for exemple, what are the rules and where can I read them ? I thought about that checking the unused files page and seeing this one. On the layout page is wrote :

Gallery -- All -- Articles with a larger than normal amount of images should group the images in its own Gallery section using :the gallery tags. Additionally, the article should be added to the Galleries category.

But on the character's layout page there isnt any ==Gallery== sections.... so how should I understand all this ? :) Thanks for you time, just trying to help this wiki with all I can! --FrenchFlo(talk)(contribs) 10:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Then you just type this:

==Gallery== <gallery> Image:Example_image.JPG|this is an example image </gallery>

Heroe(talk) 10:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Removing proven theories

According to JD, there was a consensus to remove proven theories. Is this correct, because I certainly don't remember this. Heroe(talk) 22:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

• There was some talk about it here. I don't know if we ever came to a consensus, though. Personally, I'm all for removing proven theories. First, they're not theories anymore, are they? Second, anything that cuts down the size of those mammoth pages, in my opinion, is a good thing. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Template help part 2

Okay, I created another template, and this one's messed up too. Could you fix it? Heroe(talk) 19:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

• Alrighty, it seems to be working now. The main mistake was that you had your comments tags out of place, and so the whole thing was screwy. You also forgot a bunch of code for favorite color--it should have been {{#if: {{#pos:{{{favorite color(s)}}}|,}} | Favorite colors | Favorite color }}, and all you had was Favorite color. The best thing to do is take another piece of code that works, copy and paste it where you want it, and then switch the pieces that need to be switched. Other minor mistakes: you forgot a pipe after all your "sex" returns. You had a pipe before your <pre> stuff. You had forgotten to record your work for "sex" under the usage. You left off a closing </noinclude>, so everything was being included. Check this out to see the aggregate changes I made. Other than that, good job! — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Template help:The sequel

• Once again, I'm experimenting with a new template (here), and once again, there's some problems. Could you fix them? Heroe(talk) 23:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Sure, but I'm not sure exactly what you want the template to do or to look like. BTW, you might want to make your text white or a color that will stand out. Also if you are trying to make a link, don't forget your square brackets. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I basically want it to look like it does now, only the USERTALKPAGENAME gone and the text a different color. Heroe(talk) 23:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Is that what you want? Okay, done. But I'm still not sure I understand where you want the question to go. Take a look at template:stub and see if the "needs" variable is what you're looking for. You can change it so it says something like "question" instead, and then take out all the "In particular..." mumbo jumbo. I'll let you try it on your own, I know you're looking for practice. If you need help, I'll be here another 20 minutes or so. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Official Fan Made Heroes page?

I know lots of people have been talking about it, so I got to know. Is there a specific page? I've seen the one about the heroes with silly powers which was really hilarious but I can't seem to find another page. Well I remember you telling me about that a month or two ago Ryan to I created my own Heroes Make Your Own Hero PAge with a How To Guide on how to make an awesome hero. Feel free to contribute if you want. ~User: Jason Garrick

• As far as I know, only three users have created "fake heroes" pages: ZachsMind, Riddler, and you. I've enjoyed reading the fun powers you guys invented. But, no, I don't think anybody else has made their own pages of fake heroes. :( — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Finding Copy/Pasted Articles

Here a site I use as a web designer to check content to see if it was copy/pasted from another site. I thought you might find it useful. Copyscape --Xmuskrat 14:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

• Right click/save as/favourites :) Thanks Xmuskrat! Could be usefull one day! --FrenchFlo(talk)(contribs) 14:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
• Thanks, that's a great site. I personally don't have a problem if people copy from us--I actually find it quite flattering. It is interesting to see who is either quoting us or lifting from us. But really, it's nice to see if somebody is lifting info from other sites and posting it here, which really is a big no no. I've seen that so often, mostly on the actor pages, where somebody will literally copy and paste a bio from IMDb or from Wikipedia and the like. Thanks for the resource, XM. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's exactly what I'm suggesting you use it for. If somebody thinks something has been lifted, this is a good tool to actually check and see. It does a pretty amazing job of finding matches. So long as you use your head to see where it was posted first, it can save a lot of guessing. --Xmuskrat 15:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I need a life

So I noticed that FrenchFlo and Xmuskrat have userboxes for how many edits they've made. Just out of curiousity, I thought I'd check: I'm pushing 46,000. Yikes. Scary.--Hardvice (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

• Golly, I don't think I have enough toes to count how many I have. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Is there an easier way to tell then counting pages in "My contributions"? -Lөvөl 15:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
    • saying crappy things, so tired. But good score anyway!
    • That's the best way I know to do it. (Level, you have 280, by the way). You can change the amount to view on your contributions to 20, 50, 100, 250, or 500 by pressing the appropriate number--that makes it a little easier to count pages. If you had a lot more than 500, you could also manually change the number in the link itself: 500 vs. 5000. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
      • I have about 1,000. Heroe(talk) 20:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
        • Don't sell yourself short. After the entry you made above, you have 1,292. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
• Wait a minute, Hardvice, you dont have 46,000 edits. :) More like 14,000. (Admin 13:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT))
  • I noticed that too, but I didn't want to bruise any egos. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I wish you had mentioned something. It was really bugging me. I think I forgot to set it to 500 per page when I went back and counted pages. That actually makes me feel a lot better.--Hardvice (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
      • That's okay. If it's an consolation, I still think you need a life. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
• For those interested, here are the top 10 as of 13:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT):

+-------------------+----------------+
| user_name         | user_editcount |
+-------------------+----------------+
| Hardvice          |          14319 | 
| Ryangibsonstewart |          14098 | 
| Admin             |           2540 | 
| Ohmyn0            |           1547 | 
| Orne              |           1411 | 
| Heroe             |           1360 | 
| Ted C             |           1134 | 
| FrenchFlo         |            910 | 
| Fcphantom         |            701 | 
| Frantik           |            607 | 
+-------------------+----------------+

(Admin 13:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT))

• Youhou I'm in! >:o -- FrenchFlo (talk)        13:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Not only are you "in", but afaik, you're the only nonnative English-speaker on the list. That's impressive! — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Unnamed Ages

Why is an age-range speculative? Several of the Unnamed people don't list their age at the time of the journal entry, but all of them have journal entry dates. Only Unnamed 2 is listed as a minor, and is described as a 'girl' not a 'woman' or 'man'. The generally accepted age of adulthood is commonly 18, so for each one that has a stated journal entry, we can know (without being speculative) their minimum age range in the present day. Unnamed 5 was listed as 'a women' not 'a girl' in 1978, which would make her age at least 47...that's not speculative, or in geneological terms, her present-day age would be 'circa 47+ years old'. I just don't see listing the lower-age range as being speculative to the point that we shouldn't show it. How about at least as a separate entry in the 'Notes' section then? I would like to be able to go to any of there pages after watching a show that introduces new characters that might be them, and not have to do the math to figure out if their present-day ages are correct or not. Could a 'note' entry for current age be allowed? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 03/28/2007 15:02 (EST)

• The Notes section is exactly where that info belongs. Besides the fact that a person's age is not "circa 47+ years old" (they are 48, or 49, or whatever, not "circa 47+ years old"), and besides the fact that Chandra may have misjudgjed somebody and called them a "woman" instead of a "girl", the part that's really speculative is "if still living". The notes are fine to explain all that, but it really doesn't belong in the infobox, especially without any explanation. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Hardvice just said in another talk, to put it in Notes, so I'm gonna do that...I'll come up with an explanation, and make a consistent application of it across all of the Unnameds that it applies to. Thanks. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 03/28/2007 15:25 (EST)

Reverting an edit

So I've noticed the reverting of edits before, but I never found how it is done without doing it manually. Is there a method of reverting an edit to the previous (or any previous) version? Thanks.--Bob 14:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

• Three ways, in fact:
  1. Admins have acccess to a rollback button. This reverts all of the sequential edits by the last editor. It's useful for vandalism, but not much else. For one thing, you can't leave an edit summary. Quick but brutal.
  2. You can revert to any earlier version of an article by finding the version you want in the History, clicking "edit", and saving changes.
  3. As of the last big upgrade to MediaWiki, all users can "undo" an edit. From a difference page, click the Undo button. This one is fairly nice because it undoes only one change, allows an edit summary, and allows additional changes to be added.--Hardvice (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks, Hardvice. The only thing I would add is that if you choose to revert an edit by editing an earlier version (method #2), be sure you don't lose any "good" edits between the previous version and the current version. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks. I only intended for one edit, I just saw that there was a standard comment used by others and I didn't know how. 'Preciate it.--Bob 14:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)