Brickipedia talk:Requests for patroller
From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brickipedia:Requests for patroller page.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
||
Err, who is in charge of this and decides who passes? --User:LegOtaku/sig 15:22, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Admins just grant it with {{Not done}} or {{Done}}. Any admin can decide and grant, thanks to Ajraddatz --Lcawte 15:23, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
How do I not get it because of being not very active? That's a lie. I'm one of the most active people here. And how do the others get it over me because of being more active? >:( GG 360
16:04, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- You have made a total of 7 content edits today, while Gladiatoring has made 20+, Lcawte has been helping out with some of the projects, and CW isn't very active. Even still, you have only recently come back to this wiki, so give it a while. This is only to be given out to dedicated Brickipedians. Ajraddatz Talk 16:10, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- So, that basically means that any admin who happens to be the first to vote can say yes or no and that's it? If that's the case, I think we have to do something to put it on a more solid base. I also had the idea to link autopatrol status (which already has something to do with writing expertise and responsibility) to the completeness check group. --User:LegOtaku/sig 17:48, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh.. here we go again. Please realize that this right is of even less value than rollback. Why must user groups be so overrated on Wikia? This group should be assigned to users who are dedicated to the wiki, and admins can assign it because it is so small of a right. Honestly, must we prop up everything to look like some kind of god-power? Admins were not just randomly selected, they were voted in for a reason. It is assumed that they have enough brains to be able to assign this right to those who deserve it. Also, this is not a permanent right. It should be taken away if the user goes inactive. Ajraddatz Talk 18:02, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Okay okay, I see. ;) --User:LegOtaku/sig 18:22, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Hehe, sorry for the random attack there. This could tie into the completeness check group though, as both are meant to be filled with "trusted users". Ajraddatz Talk 18:31, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Maybe I'm just too much into - you know - "involving everybody in everything", not wanting to leave anybody out in the cold or giving the impression that things are decided over their heads. But there seem to be things where you just have to decide something on your own to get things done. Concerning the completenes check group, I decided to give everybody who is either sysop or patroller the possibility to join if they wish. This patroller group was really what we needed. A group of dedicated users without sysop status but with more expertise than rollback. --User:LegOtaku/sig 19:19, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Hehe, sorry for the random attack there. This could tie into the completeness check group though, as both are meant to be filled with "trusted users". Ajraddatz Talk 18:31, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Okay okay, I see. ;) --User:LegOtaku/sig 18:22, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh.. here we go again. Please realize that this right is of even less value than rollback. Why must user groups be so overrated on Wikia? This group should be assigned to users who are dedicated to the wiki, and admins can assign it because it is so small of a right. Honestly, must we prop up everything to look like some kind of god-power? Admins were not just randomly selected, they were voted in for a reason. It is assumed that they have enough brains to be able to assign this right to those who deserve it. Also, this is not a permanent right. It should be taken away if the user goes inactive. Ajraddatz Talk 18:02, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- So, that basically means that any admin who happens to be the first to vote can say yes or no and that's it? If that's the case, I think we have to do something to put it on a more solid base. I also had the idea to link autopatrol status (which already has something to do with writing expertise and responsibility) to the completeness check group. --User:LegOtaku/sig 17:48, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- It also allows rollback to go back to what it should be - a counter-vandalism tool. Ajraddatz Talk 19:30, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Okay what?!? How come other users are getting it over me because I apparently am inactive? Man, **** that. GG 360
11:58, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- It is your Brickipedia activity that counts, and there isn't much of that. Ajraddatz Talk 14:32, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Keep language swear free please, Star-ed out or not its still not appropriate here. Kingcjc 16:44, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. GG 360 22:34, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Can you nominate others? User:CaptainJag/sig1 03:04, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. GG 360
One qusetion[edit source]
Is the 250 edits required, edits on all wikis, or edits on brickipedia?User:ZER0-0/sig 02:28, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
- On Brickipedia NovaHawk 02:30, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, because although I have only been here for 7 days, and have approx 200 edits, on the MLN wiki I have approx 800 edits in a couple of months.User:ZER0-0/sig 02:32, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Once you have 250 edits, feel free to request it! User:Ajraddatz/sig 02:33, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be not 10 days, but to have the key to the wiki badge. If you disagree, I can understand why.User:ZER0-0/sig 02:41, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
Mainspace?[edit source]
- The table at the top says "edits", but further down, it says "mainspace edits". So which one is it? NovaHawk 03:28, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
