Peter Blaise responds: Hi User:Greenrd. Other than, when I am trying to add my response to an otherwise chaotic post, reformatting the entire thread for readable continuity between successive threads in that post, presenting previous contributions identifiable by author, to which I plead guilty, what are you referring to? By the way, I LOVE your User:Greenrduser_page and find that I agree with at least 10 of your self descriptions as also being descriptions of myself, from vegan right on through! Thank you very much for your entertaining and helpful sharing.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
See User_talk:Peterblaise/mediawiki for much MediaWiki software support and "meta" discussion about MediaWiki.org contributions, policies and procedures.
Note, before visiting my sub-page page above or visiting and contributing to MediaWiki.org, I suggest considering these points that were so nicely shared by Andreas Taylor at http://www.taylor.se/blog/2007/03/22/, here's a small quote with much paraphrasal and additions of my own:
Supporting software now, are we?
Learn to say no when appropriate
... otherwise our "yes" becomes devalued. Instead of saying "yes" all the time, yet being unable to succesfully fulfil our promises, carefully commit only to what we can handle, and handle well.
If everything is equally important, then nothing is important
In other words, take the time to prioritize, then work from the top priority down, one task well done at a time.
Don't ovethink the problem
Keep it simple, first deliver what was asked for, if time permits, suggest enhancements when appropriate, but do not struggle to make all things perfect for our own inner criteria at the expense of never delivering anything at all!
It all comes down to what the customer can actually touch
No matter how cool our inner, hidden programming is, the end user only see the resulting benefits ... that is, if there are any, other than the hidden, pretty code! It has to be WORKING code, first and foremost!
Some people just behave poorly for no apparent reason
It's not about us, it's about their unresolved childhood wounds. If they could treat us nicer, they would. They're stuck, give them wide berth, and sneak Harville Hendrix's wonderful book, :"Giving The Love That Heals" under their door to encourage them to re-raise themselves with much self love and forgiveness, and be patient and compassionate. They are hurting more than we are, and we shouldn't take that on!
MediaWiki: 1.10.0
PHP: 5.2.2 (apache2handler)
MySQL: 5.0.41-community-nt
Extensions
Special pages
LastUserLogin (version 1.0.6)
Displays the last time a user logged in
Justin G. Cramer, Danila Ulyanov, Thomas Klein
Parser hooks
DynamicPageList2 (version 1.2.1)
based on DynamicPageList, featuring many improvements
IlyaHaykinson, Amgine,Unendlich, Cyril Dangerville,Algorithmix
Subpage List 2
automaticaly creates a list of the subpages of a page
Martin Schallnahs, Rob Church
Extension functions
wfLastUserLogin, wfUpdateUserTouched, wfDynamicPageList3,
wfDynamicPageList2 and efSubpageList
Parser extension tags
<dpl>, <section>, <subpages> and <pre>
Parser function hooks
dpl, int, ns, urlencode, lcfirst, ucfirst, lc, uc, localurl,
localurle, fullurl, fullurle, formatnum, grammar, plural,
numberofpages, numberofusers, numberofarticles, numberoffiles,
numberofadmins, numberofedits, language, padleft, padright,
anchorencode, special and defaultsort
Hooks
Hook name Subscribed by
LanguageGetMagic wfDynamicPageList3_Magic
LoadAllMessages wfDynamicPageListSPloadMessages
Retrieved from "http://localhost/mediawiki/index.php/Special:Version"
So, everyone, what's yours? Go to your own MediaWiki installation and type [ special:version ] into the search bar and cut and paste your informatiopn into your own userdiscussiontalkpage. That way, we can see who's doing what, which extensions are popular (or working at all!), and may be better informed when helping eachother troubleshoot!
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
How do I troubleshoot the SMTP/email notice feature? In one of our beta-test MediaWiki intranet installations, we get:
"Could not send confirmation mail. Check address for invalid characters.
Mailer returned: Failed to connect to mailserver at "localhost" port 25,
verify your "SMTP" and "smtp_port" setting in php.ini or use ini_set()"
... like everyone else installing and supporting MediaWiki software, I'm in the middle of trying to successfully implement and support MediaWiki for my users, and I'm desperately looking for a supportive community where the admins set an example of helpfulness and tolerance. Any clues to examples of successful intranetSMTP configuration for MediaWiki software?
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Peter Blaise says: I think there is poor identification and differentiation of who uses and who works in, on, around, and under a wiki. Rather than just duplicating existing resources, I suggest we brainstorm and come up with something new. I suggest a functional analysis - how each user / worker functions, what they do, and how they do it. Here are a few overlapping levels of users / workers as I experience Mediawiki installations, in order here from top (customer / end user) down to the penultimate service provider, the original coder. I find that I'm dividing my time and paying attention to three areas in my Mediawiki installations:
Content - User, Editor, Admin.
Here I see Users, Editors and Admins dealing with Articles, Discussion / Talk pages, and Categories.
Read and print content.
Contribute content.
Edit and manage content.
Manage Users, Editors, Admins.
Browser-level access to site controls.
Function - Admin, Sysop.
Here I see Admins and Sysops dealing with all the on-screen controls and what those controls do, and the underlying programs.
All of the above.
Access under the web browser.
Install, configure, update.
Operating System level tasks.
Structure - Sysop, Developer.
Here I see Admins, Sysops and Developers going behind the scenes, underneath the user interface, installing, configuring, updating, using the Operating System and other tools, and creating, finding, and installing enhancements.
Creates and modifies core software and extensions.
programmer
needs overview and details of programming.
installs, configures,
needs software choices and code information,
has access to "layers" below HTML, such as operating system and code edits.
I have no problem with one manual for all three - there just needs to be three levels of depth. Writing three or more separate manuals seems silly to me since each subsequent level of depth needs the previous level of information. I'll create a simple example:
Content User, Editor, Admin
Function Admin, Sysop
Structure Sysop, Developer
How to use the "navigation" menu
How to use the "navigation" menu
How to use the "navigation" menu
How to edit the "navigation" menu
How to edit the "navigation" menu
How to create new links in the "navigation" menu
How to create new links in the "navigation" menu
How to change the appearance if the navigation menu (css)
How to change the appearance if the navigation menu (css)
How to change the function of the "navigation" menu (php)
I can't imagine a Developer wanting a reference manual showing "navigation" menu programming controls without also at least explaining what the "navigation" menu is and how it functions, as well as how to modify it with built-in controls, without the need for programming unless they want to go beyond that. Also, as an "Function and Structure" Admin, I appreciate more than just changing the "navigation" menu with available tools, but also customizing it or adding programming-like items to it, as well as understanding where I may need to go if I want more, including a tease or invitation to "do it yourself" and dabble in Development.
In other words, I see no benefit to separate manuals, and I see all the benefits to having one, complete, all-inclusive Mediawiki reference manual. The challenge may be to easily make the depth of displayed information tunable so I can toggle or nicely enter / exit successive depths if I'm curious, and come back without getting lost.
Otherwise, I might as well just go to Google each time I need to look something up and let Google dynamically assemble my Mediawiki manual each day for me whenever I'm ready for more.
Does this make sense to anyone else? How could we accomplish this? Is there, or can we make, MediaWiki extensions that help structure a reference manual on a wiki - table of contents, page navigation controls back and forth with bookmarks to return to the same page and post it notes to highlight our discoveries, and an encyclopedic index to help us look up definitions, not just search-results listing every time the word is used? I look at Special:Version and I see no "book" publishing extensions here yet. Why is that? Peterblaise15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I appreciate what u are attempting in Yr Edit To HDD Article. However, in reading it I suggest what we should be doing is integrating the material in
Sections 6 and 6.1. That would eliminate some redundancy and put the bit serial interface issues into context. Comment? Tom94022 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Irdeto USA Inc proposed article not ready for prime time
I know, I'll paste my research below fo at least folks can find the information collected together when doing a Wikipedia serarch, and of someone else recognizes it as a germ of an article, then they can take it from here. It's about Irdeto's anti-piracy sham, a new topic below. Thanks for aty least reading it and ging what feedback you did give. peterblaise (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Boilerplate?
You're welcome?
ACCURATE articles about companies who's sole purpose is to threaten people without evidence can be written neutrally ... um, show me an example.
Responding to your protest on the article's Talk page in case you don't see it there: I'm sorry, but an attack simply cannot be here. You can't write a Wikipedia article to vent your hostility and then expect others to jump and fix it. This isn't the place for that. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. If the reason you want to write about a business is to deliver the pointed message that its "sole purpose is to threaten people without evidence", then this isn't the place for it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I appreciate your first read was "oh, this is hostile", not "oh, this is scaffolding for a more complete article, perhaps renamed "piracy ding" or whatever ...", then joining in and listing the ambulance-bit-chasers -- torrent chasers? -- who broadcast empty dunning notices ... oh, you can read the article.
Oh, no, you can't!
Deletionist? Why not put in the extra work to be a hard working contributor, co-writer, editor -- have Wikipedia volunteers devolved into deletionists once again? peterblaise (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for continuing to republish attack pages after warnings to stop. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron3204:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
You were told quite clearly to stop posting content which attacks or disparages and you continued to do it. I also see very little in your contributions (back to 2010) where you are contributing the goal of creating an encyclopedia. I suggest that if you wish to appeal you consider the second chance procedure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The reason for the block, as listed in the block log entry, is that you are clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. I have checked your editing history, all the way from 2006 to the present, and have thoroughly confirmed that you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: your purpose here is clearly to use Wikipedia to publicise your own views on various issues. (The latest example, involving repeatedly posting an attack on a business, despite being informed that doing so was unacceptable, was just one example of this.) Moreover, nothing you have said since being blocked indicates that you understand that and intend to do differently in the future. (Indeed, your latest unblock request is totally incomprehensible.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Nanophosis (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
