User talk:Shadowphoenix/Whats Your Wiki Personality

Note: Tell us what you think your wiki personality is on the results page. This page is to comment on the project and/ or suggest a new category be added.

← moved to User:Shadowphoenix/Whats Your Wiki Personality/Results

General Comments

Shadow, you're either Outgoing or Stern Outgoing, to be sure. :P MiraLantis 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

When I made it, I figured I would fall under the Stern Outgoing, i care about both the community and the content (but the community a little more ) :o) --Shadowphoenix 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's better than me. I'm a patrol. That SO needs a better name. What about 'Fluffer?' Primper would also work, I suppose. Wiki Hairdresser? No no... wikis don't have hair... Wiki STYLIST! MiraLantis 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Which one is the "Spam random page and add comments, fix grammar/spelling, and sometimes pointless trivia"? or the one that fixes spelling mistakes on other ppls pages, lol Lost-Blue 02:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you quite sure you want to be known as a Fluffer?!? :-D --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 12:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, too :P MiraLantis 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That would be patrol, I think or casual editor, but I am leaning more towards patrol... --Shadowphoenix 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can the "Wiki Cabalist" be added to this list? Also, any thoughts on where I belong? I'm interested to see what other people think. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Straighforward Serious Editor imo, but idk maybe just Serious editor :) --Shadowphoenix 04:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I finally chose The Amiable Serious Editor, I often find myself doing what Patrols do. Having said that I also fit into The Astute Editor but I'm guessing I can only do one right? --Kakarot 13:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I neither edit nor patrol. Cabalist is most suitable for me. —Tanaric 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Erhm

May i suggest moving the "sections" part of this into a proper user page article, in order to avoid any conflict with possible removal of text? I mean... there is this whole "Talk page - don't remove text" stuff...--Fighterdoken 06:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do :o) --Shadowphoenix 17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps...

People could be in multiple categories? I'm not sure...- Vanguard 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No but if you want to suggest a new category that combines some just tell me --Shadowphoenix 17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

another comment

i think this is really great since there's always some good words in there about you, no matter where you find yourself (with two exceptions...). i just don't like some of the proposals for adminship. they're in general ok, there's just one or two which i don't really think fit. - Y0_ich_halt 19:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

i just think we shouldn't suggest or deny admin position here :) (i hope you get what i mean, i can't think of better expressions right now) - Y0_ich_halt 19:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, it says usually for a reason because there are of course execptions --Shadowphoenix 19:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not so comfortable with the references to appropriateness for adminship either.-- Wynthyst 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it des need to be tweaked :P --Shadowphoenix 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh

I like how nearly everyone (who take this serious), are very positive and only 3(?) put themselves in negative categories. -- Mini Me 19:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a personality test, it is an opinion on what you think your wiki personality is :o) --Shadowphoenix 19:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. I realize that. I just think it's funny how everyone's opinion of their wiki personality is good :) -- Mini Me 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorys

Why didn't you just use the ones they have on Wikipedia? — ク Eloc 貢 05:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Because, I wanted to use more technical terms and less joking terms. These were made for teaching orignally --Shadowphoenix 05:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiDragons ftw. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can it really be helpful if you don't first define or clarify what they are? And another thing is... I don't think you actually learn anything if you have to choose your own category... -- ab.er.rant 07:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many

you have way too specific categories here. just like guild wars professions, the first ones are rather clearly defined to a certain role. the ones below go into detail very much, ending up overlapping or even duplicating each other. </generally about gw prof and these cats> i'd recommend you think about it again, decide what classes are needed and which are redundant, and then request new categorization. it's usual for projects like this to end up this way, since roles noticed later in the process aren't kept in mind at the beginning, just like if you write a book and you don't think through the whole story, then you get to a dead end (e.g. your main char dies) and you gotta go some cliché way around, which takes much of the initial quality. if you want me to, i can help you with that, but since it's your project, i thought i'd first tell you about it before i start rewriting everything ^^ - Y0_ich_halt 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the reason this has go so many categories is because the folks over a GuildWiki were complaining there were to few categories, of course there are over 100 all together but I am not going to add them all. But, you must remember this is for teaching purposes, so I need to be as specific as possible. However, I do agree this needs to be tweaked; so if you want to try to tweak it open your sandbox on Wynwiki (or here :D) and me and Wyn will look over it and see if we can put it in the mainspace :o). I don't mind reviewing your version, so have at it. Thanks For The Feedback! :D --Shadowphoenix 15:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree there are way too many, but as you said, it will be tweaked as it goes.-- Wynthyst 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, i'll think about it and write an article over at wynwiki when i find some time for it. i'm away this weekend, so neither wiki nor guild wars nor anything else :( - Y0_ich_halt 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

i'll have a look at this then again. I looked through the list and now i'm not sure where to put myself in, as there were so many that partly overlapped, but also some other sections in the categories that didn't suit again. —ZerphaThe Improver 22:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a "Don't-know-what-wiki-personality-I-am Editor" :P -- ab.er.rant 07:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

im

ym lolol — Skakid 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of..

The D&D alignment chart. I see a few repeating words here: amiable, serious, abhorrent, etc. It got me thinking about how various characters are "good", "evil", or "neutral"; with a modifier of "lawful", "(true) neutral", and "chaotic". Perhaps the items could be shaped using "amiable" and others against "editor", "patrol", "vandal" etc. Just a thought. --People of Antioch 22:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rate other users

I'd love to see a rate other users area, but it might get abused. Still, I think it's easier to label others than yourself! Just a thought. MiraLantis 07:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be too general. Me: Cabalist, everyone else: people who do all the work. —Tanaric 07:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hah. Oh come, you wouldn't be able to name what some of the more active users as well as admins? I bet you could :P Or you could just name them all "Vandal." :P MiraLantis 07:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

LordBiro: MuffinMan, Aiiane: Mysterious stranger in the night.

I'm not sure how to convert those into the allowed categories.

—Tanaric 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, normally I would agree with the Rate the user thing; but it is happening on GuildWiki and I am observing it b4 I do anything like that here. --Shadowphoenix 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people might be mis-interpreted. Some people might consider me as something entirely different, while I am in fact, a simple patroller.- Vanguard 16:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an idea...

maybe get people to say whether they agree to what people have put themselves in, and maybe vote on it (in kinda RfA style). I could create the pages for that no problem.--Sum Mesmer Guy 07:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that I haven't heard of a lot of the users that are part of this project, and I'm fairly active here. I think if that were to happen it wouldn't work so well - people who haven't noticed the style of regular editor's edits (them being new editors themselves) would just pick something random (or related to said editor's signature), while the rest of us will see new editors and fail to comment, therefore giving a negative (although unintentionally negative) response to the new editors, who are potential old editors. If that makes sense. MiraLantis 07:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

what?--Sum Mesmer Guy 07:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone new to the community would be hurt that they don't have any people supporting or opposing their editing type. Which sucks, because we could use good editors! While nominating other people, I think, keeps people from being left out (nobody nominated you? big deal), voting support or oppose would do so (as no one will support or oppose the editor-type of someone they've never heard of). It's sort of like the b-crat elections right now. My name comes up and everyone is all Support or Oppose. I'd be kind of hurt for all the oppose votes, whereas if my name never came up, I wouldn't be hurt at all. I just don't want to discourage people from contributing to the wiki. MiraLantis 07:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

maybe a note on the page to warn new users of that risk?-Sum Mesmer Guy 07:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What the heck am I?

Too many categories make this pretty confusing. I assume I am abhorrent. Misery 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know it for me either. The many categories confuse me =( |Cyan LightLive!| 15:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

@Mis - Abhorrent Freelance Editor @Cyan - The Outgoing Patrol Most people fall into more than one. --Shadowphoenix 16:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you calling me abhorrent? Misery 16:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Im outgoing, never thought that =P |Cyan LightLive!| 06:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Misery, I am. --Shadowphoenix 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Misery 14:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But I still <3 u --Shadowphoenix 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You just loath me and find me repugnant too? Misery 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We have a complicated relationship my love. --Shadowphoenix 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just getting up to speed. Misery 15:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)