User talk:Eyaluth/Archive/Archive1

---

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

Welcome

Hello Simon, would love to talk with you about helping patrol RecentChanges!! Cheers, MarkDilley

RecentChanges patrol

I would like talk with you about your wiki experience and our general strategy for the explosion right now. Best, MarkDilley

By the way, don't know if you saw, but I linked the way you do welcomes to the RecentChanges patroller page. Nice work.

voice chat if possible

I like the voice to augment words on the screen :-) It is much richer and in my experience it helps develop relationships. MarkDilley

Let me know how I can talk, via skype or something like that.

I sent you a skype contact message. Cheers, MarkDilley

the point

The point was to see about sites that aren't in the top level of their own domain. tedernst.com/wp is a different place than tedernst.com, but aboutus doesn't seem to know what to do with pages like that yet. It's fine to have deleted it. No worries. Thanks. TedErnst 18:23, 4 September 2006 (PDT)

And we are placeing {{AddSubdomain}} to subdomain pages. They have to be hand entered. Best, MarkDilley

Thanks, Simon. When others make test subdomains in the future, it would be great if you could guide them to do what I ended up doing, rather than just deleting their page. Thanks! TedErnst 22:09, 4 September 2006 (PDT)

No worries, Simon. I wasn't aware either, obviously. We're all learning together as we go. peace, TedErnst 22:19, 4 September 2006 (PDT)

name pages and talk pages

Hi Simon, did I mistakenly add something to someone's name page? Best, MarkDilley

I sure did, my mistake. Using three ~~~ :-) Best, MarkDilley

Information decisions

Hello Simon, This edit here looks like you were trying to keep information regarding the page that was generated by the AboutUsBot. But it looks like the owner of the site, as we can only assume, didn't want it on the page. Since we are in the first month of real activity, we have been letting that happen, in hopes that these types of edits will be added in when a website owner or person working in that category of website see the value of the links. What are your thoughts on this? Best, MarkDilley

So far on the page deletions, either they email Ray or they blank their page out. As far as category or related domain deletion, I think because we are in beta, letting folks edit their pages at will seems to me the best strategy. I will link this convo to Ray to see if he concurs. I think in the future, when someone is doing specific work on adding categories to domain names, or categories of domain names, I personally will have a different take on that. But right now it is bot generated. How does that feel to you? MarkDilley

I concur that we should default to assuming people are acting in good faith and only revert if we are confident that the changes are bad. --User:Ray King | talk 22:23, 4 September 2006 (PDT)

Copy that. Simon | talk 22:29, 4 September 2006 (PDT)

reviews

This is what we have been doing for review type comments, it is one of the things being developed, a better way to get people to use the tools. [1] Best, MarkDilley

It is the way we have decided to do so far. Please place comments on the talk page of the template. As far as putting it on someone's user talk page, that would be good if they signed in, but as anonymous IP addresses, it is difficult. For example, if you come in through AOL, you get randomly assigned an IP, so you might get a talk alert from a previous person, so as I understand it, talking to IP's is not effective. MarkDilley

Patrick

Curious what your thoughts on this are Simon. Best, MarkDilley

Hey TakKendrick, I see that you seem to be reverting a lot of Patrick's edits and it looks to me like they are done to better the wiki and done in good faith, is there a reason for these reverts? --Simon | talk 22:52, 6 September 2006 (PDT)

Simon, while I believe that Patrick was acting in good faith, what he was doing was against our Internal Linking Guide. I discussed it with Mark Dilley and we both agreed that the proper course of action was to rollback those changes, in part because there's no way to differentiate between pages that were actually related to his and ones that weren't. In past conversations with Ray and Mark about it, we sort of decided that that's part of why there's the category system. --TakKendrick 01:20, 7 September 2006 (PDT)

Internal Linking Guide

Hey Simon, I agree that AssumeGoodFaith is a standard to operate by in wiki. I think we are worried that people that make a bunch of edits in others related sites fields are doing internal link spam. Patrick did ~150 of them. We tried to make this clear with this statement. Please don't over do it, however. If you're adding more than 20 such links or you're putting up links on very popular and not directly related sites, then you're overdoing it and it will look like spam to us. And if you noticed, I held off on doing that to a couple of people last night so we could flush out this conversation, (which I will somehow move to a discussion page.) Best, MarkDilley

my response on Talk:Domain Directory

I think that is the link... MarkDilley, leave messages here - rockin the link was it!

Tech Crunch

Hey Simon, trying to deal with Tech Crunch blog at the moment, I think we are on the same wave length, but trying to make a point to the fellow. Cheers, MarkDilley

TechCrunch and irc

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/11/14/aboutusorg-a-wiki-about-every-website/

are you on IRC? Best, MarkDilley

Thanks

for the help with that OptOut, you were faster than me :-) User:Ray King | talk 17:40, 15 November 2006 (PST)

RC Guide

Hello Simon,

Sounds great, why don't you build it out on the discussion page first? what do you think about that? Best, MarkDilley

Cool, and like that you paged out the ideas, good idea. I will shop these around and hope that it will generate comments ~~