User talk:Raidarr

Drop your comments, inquiries, etc. Please fill from the bottom of the page.

Please forgive me if my responses are a little brisk; reading this I realize I've come off too strong, and I'll try to improve that. --Raidarr (talk)

Criminal wiki
Hi Raidarr, how are you? The criminal wiki is still available if you wanted to edit more? Thanks. Sperosdurell (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe I left you a comment regarding organization there, and that is what I would likely start with. Bear in mind that two other wikis are my creative focus, although actually focusing on them is a tricky business and the only reason I try to 'muse up' looking elsewhere. So your mileage may vary, and unfortunately it would not be daily. If you have a platform like Discord we could discuss things all at once to come up with a creative direction using whatever you have in mind and what I can manage in offshoots of my ideas. Thank you. -- Raidarr (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Shaw's Nightmare
Hi Raidarr, how are you? Shaw's Nightmare Wiki needs some help, so maybe try to edit it more? The levels articles in particular need some love. Thanks. Mickey96 (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited at all, and that is because I have little interest in the wiki subject. But if you would like advice or administrative work, feel free to specify what you'd like to see and I can give it a look. For content itself - the stuff that requires most familiarity with the material - I'm afraid I am not useful for. --Raidarr (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of the Home Page and how attractive it is to newcomers?

Not to be a pest...
I do have a lot of stubs. My mind works in weird ways sorry. If your around sometime easypedia is there. Thank you talk to you later. Sperosdurell (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't intend to be mean, personally. However, I do worry a little about the long term future. You have an account that appears to be an alt that requested the wiki, which seems odd. Previous projects seem to be left behind with nothing more than the stubs. To contribute to a place, I need to know that it will last, and that its leaders intend more for it than hoping that someone else (ie, me) will be the ones to give it depth. One-line promises cannot do this. If you have more ideas for what the wiki will do, please share. In particular I need to believe that the wiki stands for more than just being an alternative wikipedia with a lot less stuff and no content curation.
 * I give anything with a clear idea a chance, but there at least should be proof to more in the idea. A passion if you will. Evidence that this is 'the one' that won't be what I have seen before. --Raidarr (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I live in a hard environment to do miraheze or any wiki project for that matter. Saying that i will try and edit every day so the wiki doesn't go stale. I hope you can work with me and the Wiki. Sperosdurell (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can respect not having much time. I'm not sure when I will go back to EP, but I'll give it another look and try to see if there is something structural I can offer. --Raidarr (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Much appreciated. Im sticking with it!!! Sperosdurell (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, i hope you can accept my apology. Sperosdurell (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * hi raidarr, apologies for bothering you, news you visited, any chance you coming back? Sperosdurell (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well frankly it depends on a question. Is that wiki going to get more than a week's attention, or will it go the way of every other? 'sticking to it' didn't age well when your talk page and logs indicate you then went on an unsustainable creation spree for seemingly every other topic to exist. --Raidarr (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Patroller granted - 2021-08-30
Hi, Raidarr. An administrator on Meta has granted you the  user group permission, which gives you the ability to   recent changes and new pages of other Miraheze users (both registered and anonymous) who are  not either autopatrolled or an administrator. In addition, this group also means that your edits are, so other patrollers or administrators don't have to patrol your edits. You should also be aware that the granting of this user group is at the discretion of Meta administrators, so different administrators will have slightly different criteria for granting. Likewise, just as it is a discretionary appointment, revocation is also at the discretion of Meta administrators and, again, each will have their own criteria for revocation.

In the medium-term, plans are in the works to develop a Meta Patrollers School, likely led by one or two active administrators, that will provide a comprehensive set of guidelines for patrollers and answers to commonly asked questions.

Nevertheless, the following are some of the main guidelines for patrolling. If you follow these guidelines completely, it is unlikely your patroller user group should ever be revoked. In technical terms, even when you find content that requires deletion by an administrator or otherwise requires remediation, undoing, reverting, or rolling back (if you are also a, of course), you should always first mark as patrolled any revisions regardless of whether that content is destined to remain extant to the page or even on Meta entirely.


 * 1) When patrolling talk pages, user talk pages, and noticeboards (in Main and Meta namespaces), you should first check to see whether the user properly signed their posts using four tildes . If they have not, you should add unsigned by substitution, where username is the user's username or IP address and the timestamp is the full timestamp from the diff page. As a best practice, you should also link to the diff in your edit summary, so other administrators and patrollers can easily tie your modification to the original edit being modified. To speed up this process, you can copy the   user script from line 5 of this page into either your (a) common.js or (b) global.js page (the latter applying globally on all Miraheze wikis);
 * 2) When patrolling the noticeboards, ask yourself whether this topic is on the correct noticeboard. If it is not, you should move it to the correct noticeboard, by either undoing the edit or manually removing the topic (if there have been intervening edits), again linking to the original noticeboard of the topic and the new noticeboard where it was moved in your edit summary. On the new noticeboard, you would simply paste in the topic (including the section header), linking to the diff page as in the first step. An example edit summary might be , where  ######  represents the numeric revision ID of the originally posted topic;
 * 3) Also when patrolling the noticeboards and talk pages (including user talk pages), as a best practice, take care to kindly fix any formatting mistakes (such as excess line breaks or incorrect wiki code), per WP:LISTGAP;
 * 4) If something requires deletion, you can add delete to the top of the page in question, taking care to follow the instructions on that template page;
 * 5) If you come across a user who repeatedly makes the same mistakes, send them a guidance note on their user talk page, informing of the steps need to edit and post constructively on Meta; and, finally,
 * 6) If in doubt whether something requires remediation or not, patrol it, and then ask any administrator via their user talk page or at Administrators' noticeboard if any further action needs to be taken.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you! --Dmehus (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I believe I'm good right now, but I'll let you (or at least someone :p) know if something comes up. Thank you. --Raidarr (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

To Raidarr
I left a message for you on sixsentencespedia, thnx 😊 Sperosdurell (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Morning Sperosdurell (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. I have replied there, but is there more you wanted to discuss? --Raidarr (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just saying hi and im working on the Wiki as best i can. Ttyl. Sperosdurell (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I also sent you a message on my new wiki. Tootle-loo! FreezingTNT (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Responded there as well. --Raidarr (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

So I finished my response on the wiki, had some personal-related issues in IRL which prevented me from finishing the comment. FreezingTNT (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Morning.
It's me, Speros. SperosDurrell (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello? --Raidarr (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A bit of background about the Rebrand

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Further edits will be reverted.
 * You are ignoring my points, my suggestions for due process, and the simple facts including:


 * Your arguments lack a proper community concensus to stand on; the primary source is a lengthy back and forth exchange unilaterally composed and imposed by a small handful of users on behalf of all of the wikis
 * Your case has no backing or interest shown by bureaucrat members of Qualitipedia's administration
 * There is no demand, indeed a snowball response to the many things you have proposed in pursuit of a rebrand only you are pushing
 * Said rebrand has done nothing to administratively stabilize an inherently unstable leadership structure, in other words, what you are proposing I don't care about because it does not solve actual problems
 * You have no authority based on the above to tell me, the Qualitipedia staff, or the Miraheze Sysadmins and Stewards what to do, and you certainly cannot demand technical changes be done or not done because you're singlehandedly pushing a rebrand
 * The primary engineer of the rebrand is not in good standing and has in fact entirely abandoned Qualitipedia to pursue his own vision per his right, but that does not mean the ideas that became a part of the wikis are in any way his to change now

If you want to discuss this topic, take it to a sympathetic Qualitipedia bureaucrat or use due process to suggest its implementation on Qualitipedia Meta when you are able after the unblock (such as by Request for Comment). I am not interested in what else you have to say about this and I will refuse any further discourse via my talk page on any wiki. What you do with other users or due process in community is your business, but I strongly suggest avoiding the bossy imposition of your positions as 'the only options' both for the sake of your case being respected by anyone and to avoid trouble that comes with that behavior. It's become easy to understand why Mario and Duchess were frustrated with you. Though my temper is somewhat longer, it has run its course. There is nothing more to say. --Raidarr (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem to not know much about the rebrand, I will catch you up. In August 2020, a user named FreezingTNT came up with the idea to reform what was known at that time as the Triangle of Opinionated Entertainment. It went through a few name changes, however. The rebrand was originally known as Operation Phoenix. The plan was to group all of the entertainment wikis existing at the time into one big network. After September, the plan mostly went stale. However, in December, I discovered these plans when I searched up Triangle of Opinionated Entertainment to see what would come up. I left a message saying that I liked the idea, given that the Outcast Network had fallen just three months earlier. Then, me, FreezingTNT, and a few other users discussed ideas, including name changes and some merges. First, the logos were changed to logos inspired by those used by MatPat. Then we decided to merge Horrible TV Show Episodes Wiki with Terrible TV Shows Wiki to form Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki, and merge Marvelous TV Show Episodes Wiki with Best TV Shows Wiki to form Best Shows & Episodes Wiki. We then renamed some of the wikis to new names, but only the actual wiki names and not the domain names/database names. We then did main page redesigns for all of the main pages, to what they are now. Even though we were almost finished, FreezingTNT unfortunately got blocked, and MarioMario456 and DuchessTheSponge then steered the rebrand way off course by changing the logos, closing the characters wikis, and creating Worst Music & Songs Wiki and abandoning the election on Horrible Music & Songs Wiki. They both had a clearly different agenda from FreezingTNT's vision, and they used his block as an excuse to set back a lot of the progress. Now that Duchess is locked and Mario is retired, we may be able to set things back to normal. This rebrand is not optional: It is for the future of Qualitipedia, and it is to unify the entertainment wikis following the fall of the Outcast Network. There is an entire thread on Awful Movies Wiki discussing the rebrand, which bumped my contribution count on that wiki from about 50 to over 400, though I have done other edits. This rebrand is what invested much of my interest in Qualitipedia and is why I started becoming much more active. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is the thread which basically provides most of the background: mh:awfulmovies:Topic:Vslpo86sxynoddjn. It is actually on the talk page for FreezingTNT's sandbox which gives even more background. Warning: The thread is very long and may take a while to load. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the attempted rebrand, and considering its original engineers are gone and the current admins have no apparent desire to continue it, the only rebrand I think will happen is the kind I personally try and execute since there is nothing binding in the content you state now. FreezingTNT is still gone. Need for change is not optimal. The methods including what you state is. It is merely your opinion that your method described is mandatory. I invite you to contribute to the current discussions and efforts, including my latest regarding policy review. This aspect along with zero effort at a staffing-first approach to fixes I suspect are critical to why the rebrand had severe issues in the first place, more than individual users being an issue. It should have considered their problems in behavior in the first place. Know the current environment. Being inflexible in this is what will result in failure. --Raidarr (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoa whoa whoa, you can't just suddenly undo months of progress. I am one of the engineers. You can't just randomly go and change everything that took months to build. Nothing is wrong with the rebrand. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't personally undone anything. The progress, however, has clearly not been done for quite a few months straight (certainly not since I've been here), and a good portion of what you describe was already undone. The full details of what to do were not even fully concentrated into a final plan and the actual engineer with powers has long since been demoted; you were not an engineer with authority. Said plan is clearly not successful. If you want to propose an actionable plan to the people actually responsible with the power, do so with the bureaucrats - probably DarkMatterMan who you are already in contact with. But do not presume you can order people to follow a plan that was never definitive (if the best you can provide for it is an incredibly lengthy thread with disagreements + back and forths) and a position of authority that never existed, because you remain unpopular today for this impression among influential users of QP. --Raidarr (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately yes, it does seem like some of it has been undone. I would not call the rebrand "failed", however, because the wiki merges, wiki renames, and main page redesigns are all finished. Also, the wikis are now known as Qualitipedia because of the rebrand. Also, the plan is definitive. The rebrand, or Operation Phoenix as it was originally called in early stages, has been mostly successful. The only reason that Operation Phoenix did not completely succeed was because of FreezingTNT's demotion and Trevor807 and Masson Thief leaving the wikis, thus resulting in MarioMario456 and DuchessTheSponge usurping the throne and undoing a lot of the progress. Operation Phoenix is already complete. Other than the logo changes and the characters wikis being kicked out of the network, Operation Phoenix has been successful. So it is not the "failed experiment" that you claim it is. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will ping here so he can give his two cents, since this whole rebrand was his idea and he may have more to say. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Believe as you wish, the conditions I noted remain the same. Also, for the record, I don't hold much faith in it if those main pages were the intention. They are due for a further redesign so they can actually be responsive and have less wasted space. They are not something to unilaterally impose as your near flooding of the noticeboards with largely your own issues would try, whether you see it that way or not. If you want to discuss it further, heed the above or take it to the bureaucrats. I shall not enter yet another prolonged argument about your opinion verses mine with little progress in each exchange. --Raidarr (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not change anything about the rebrand. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please leave administrative work to administrators and use the proper functions to influence them. --Raidarr (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The rebrand is complete, and there is no need to revert anything. Things are fine just the way they are right now. All that needs to happen is Worst Music & Songs Wiki needs a main page redesign. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I know I said I would not bite further, but I note the change from 'don't jeopardize it' to 'it's already done don't change it'. Rather contradictory since hardly anything has changed between statements. Regardless, if this is the final result, it deserves to be overwritten. It is a small step towards civility from before in some parts, but it has a long way to go. The main page templates are poorly designed and the 'rebrand' has hardly improved anything from a staffing and policy perspective. This 'completeness' continues to leave Reception Wikis an inconsistent disaster and a drawback to the reputation of Miraheze as a platform from a design and content perspective. What I see in the wikis is the small sliver of a chance they can be constructively focused and improve this reputation, not just ego circles for a few users of influence or sullied with a total lack of standards or traffic and far too many wikis to be useful or manageable by administrators. Frankly what you are purporting now is a threat to this idea. Forgive me if I act to mitigate a threat of that nature in my actions going forward.--Raidarr (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have problems with the rebrand, talk to FreezingTNT. But this was his idea, so it is either this rebrand or we go back to the Triangle of Opinionated Entertainment. We are not just randomly reorganizing the wikis. You will need FreezingTNT's consent before you can do anything with this. This is meant for unification. That is why we incorporated the music, literature, and character wikis into the network (before the characters wikis were kicked out). Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FreezingTNT is not an administrator on Qualitipedia. In fact I believe his block still stands across Qualitipedia, which he is free to appeal through an actual appeals process that came into existence outside of your barely tangible rebrand. You have no legs to stand on. Desist. --Raidarr (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry
I’m sorry about that argument, I just got frustrated because you were talking about reverting the rebrand. I asked DMM to redesign the main page of Worst Music & Songs Wiki and that should be done soon. In the meantime, I feel it would be safest to leave things the way they are on Qualitipedia for right now, and improvements can be discussed when improvements are needed. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)