To Bot or Not to Bot - That is the Question ;-)

If you've got a bot, maybe you would be interested in making a new user (such as User:MurphBot) so the admins can tag it as such. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 23:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the feedback. I did ponder a bot account, but decided against it after mulling over the WoWWiki:Bots article, since I didn't think a maximum of 150-ish edits qualified as truly massive, and I don't plan on running it repeatedly - that was (hopefully) a one-time cleanup of Category:Leatherworking. If the admins would prefer that I do such things from a bot user, I'd be happy to oblige (for reference, I was using pywikipediabot's " tidy" script, manually assigning subcategories to trim down the main leatherworking category). --Murph 00:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Hehe. I guess only 150 edits isn't a real big thing. --Sky (t · c · w) 00:35, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

{{extrasuperspeedydelete}} of "ClassX builds"

See also: User talk:Sky2042#{{extrasuperspeedydelete}} of "ClassX_builds"

WoW... Is that almost a year ago? o_o

As for the super-speedy, there's no reason to create it, that I can see. --Sky (t · c · w) 06:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Borrowing a some lines

I was using {{Preview}}, but you do have a way with words... so hope you don't mind but I took what you've said to a few and made {{Editing}}. User:Coobra/Sig3 08:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'm very happy for you to do that - it will save some typing in the future. Smiley.gif --Murph (talkcontr) 08:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Deprecate Elinks-object/wotlk?

It's deprecated. Feel free to change all instances of the template. User:Gourra/Sig2 18:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Good thoughts

Thanks for dropping by to give me your thoughts. Kirkburn had done so as well privately over the last few weeks, so I circled back with him and asked his advice on what we should do. Hopefully you'll see my reply on the village pump as a reasonable starting point. Believe it or not, we think long and hard about each change and have fierce debates internally Gil (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Artifact Color

Until we can resolve officially the status of "Artifact" items, everything is speculation. The only official statements and documentation have all indicated that artifacts are red in color. So until that changes, we need to leave the artifact color as red.

Zeldain (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Game API cannot be deemed to be accurate when in fact Artifacts are a currently un-implemented feature. There are no artifacts in the game...
Just like Nazjatar is not in the game, yet there it is in the game files (unfinished), developers and designers do not update functionality that is not current.
Therefore, the only CURRENT statements outside of the game we have, both in documentation format as well as Blizzard posters, is that the color is red.
If you look at this page:
Which used to house info about Artifacts, and indicate they were RED, is now devoid of Artifact information. However it has been amended to include the Heirloom info, meaning that it's a current document. Using this, we should remove Artifact from all WoW Wiki pages outside of footnote speculation where the color should be noted as red, since the gold color is now used for Heirloom and Blizzard will not duplicate the use of a color for another Item Quality.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeldain (talkcontr). 05:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Meeting with Gil at Wikia

The meeting is now 3-4 PM Pacific (11 PM GMT start which may be kind of late?) on Tuesday (20-Jan-2009). Will that work for you? Do you have a Skype account? --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:06 PM PST 19 Jan 2009

Vote might have died

Sadly.. I don't know how to promote your vote so more might actually respond. -Howbizr (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not looking like it will reach a conclusion any time soon. That's ok though, I wasn't expecting any miracles with it, just thought I'd see if any form of consensus could be reached over it, since they had been much emotive discussion over it historically, but never a vote to record preferences for a particular naming standard. --Murph (talkcontr) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Domain change "vote" and ads

Can I ask why this decision appeared so hush-hush? I visited WoWWiki alot in January but I dont recall seeing a header on any page I was viewing or any information on the front page. The consequences of this decision affect all WoWWiki users. When I first saw the new add on the Hunter abilities page I assumed it was some spammer. I really dislike seeing adds on any Wiki. I would have gladly had voted for the domain change.

Why was there no header on the pages directing the community and users to vote on this important issue? Only 15 people voted on the WoWWiki talk:Domain page, that hardly counts as a consensus. Ifandbut (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A reply can be seen at Spam or sponsor?. User:Coobra/Sig3 17:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Call upon murphbot again

There were a bunch of template issues I found on new achievement pages. I don't know if it was just one editor who was making copy-paste errors, or if something's up with pre-loading the boilerplate. Either way, if you can re-run it again, that would be awesome.

Also feature requests, if you have time:

  • If the criteria and the description are identical, or are identical minus one character (for example, sometimes ppl forget the period in one), can you delete the criteria?
  • If the disambig is empty, can you delete it?

Thanks!! -Howbizr (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Substituting timestamps

Basically, I can't get User:Howbizr/sig to work as I wish it could. I thought maybe the "{<includeonly></includeonly>{" trick would work, but it doesn't.

I'm trying to use it by writing {{subst:User:Howbizr/sig}} and getting a hard coded timestamp as the output, where the timezone isn't UTC. But it seems no matter what I try, I can't get {{#time:}} to substitute unless I write it out by hand every time - {{subst:#time}} which isn't any fun.

If you have any ideas... let me know. -Howbizr (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha! Actually I think I got it finally... Double <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> seemed to do the trick. - /chomp‎ Howbizr(t·c) 5:34 PM EDT 2 Jun 2009